For as long as I can remember (that is many decades), I have used Outlook's (O365, whatever you want to call it) for my diary. For various reasons, I have decided to move to Google Calendar. Hopefully, that will be a good, long term. sustainable decision. Any thoughts?

Scholarly publicaton, whether authors, journals, publications - or even claims made in the articles themselves - have to be supported by some evidence. I wonder how this journal would support the statement that it is one of the leading journals in its field?

Received this email from American Journal of Surgery and Clinical Case Reports (ISSN 2689-8268). I have not looked at this journal as yet, so not claiming that it is predatory (pr not) but the thing that struck me was the statement "As a leading journal in the field ... ". 🧵

Whever I investigate a journal, I am always interested by any claimed impact factor. Often, the journal just states an impact factor but provides no information about how the impact factor is derived (that is a major red flag). 🧵

Again, I am not saying that Metaverse is predatory, but I am unsure why they are using an Omniscient domain for some of the communication. It just causes (at best) confusion and (at worst) concerns about what the journal/publisher is up to. What is your view? Am I looking too closely for red flags?

4️⃣ The journal URL [Image 2] is aber.apasciom 5️⃣ Nova has a phone number of +60 (Malaysia), rather than Singapore. Nothing wrong with that (the two countries are next to each other) but it does make you look twice.

2️⃣ Nova says that they are an assistant editor of Metaverse [Image 1]

1️⃣ The email is from "Omniscisent", which is a different publisher, but the domain name on the email is "https://apapublish.com" [Image 1]

I am not saying that this journal is predatory but I noted a few things that would raise red flags for me and would suggest that further investigation would be in order.

I received this email (shown over two images) from Metaverse (2810-9791), which is published by Asia Pacific Academy of Science Pte. Ltd. The journal is Scopus Q3 (at least in one category), which I have confirmed by looking at Scopus. 🧵

But this list has to be treated with caution, as it is subject to Goodhart's Law ("When a metric becomes a target it is no longer a good metric").

Lots of people are saying that they are in the Stanford/Elsevier top 2% list. Which is great, if you are there legitimately (which I feel that the majority of people are). 🧵