rovedar.com Scam Check: 10/100 Trust | ScamMinder

Exercise caution when interacting with this website.

The website rovedar.com claims to be an online open-access publisher, but several red flags suggest it may not be a legitimate or reputable source for scientific publishing. Here are some reasons for concern: 1. Lack of Credible Information: The website provides detailed information about its founder, Dr. Daryoush Babazadeh, and the company's structure, but there is no independent verification of these claims. Legitimate publishers typically have verifiable information about their leadership and operations. 2. Unsubstantiated Financial Claims: The website states that the company is debt-free and does not repay loans or investments, relying solely on author publication fees. However, without transparent financial reports, it's difficult to verify these assertions. 3. High Percentage of Revenue from Discounts and Waivers: The website claims that 23% of its revenue comes from discounts and waivers. This is unusually high and could indicate a lack of sustainable business practices. 4. Unusual Allocation of Funds: The breakdown of how the company allocates its revenue (e.g., 15% for journal operations, 10% for publication costs) seems arbitrary and does not align with standard practices in the publishing industry. 5. Overemphasis on Founder's Credentials: The website prominently features the founder's academic and professional credentials, which could be a tactic to lend credibility to the organization. 6. Limited Information on Editorial Board and Review Process: Legitimate publishers typically provide detailed information about their editorial board and peer review process. The website lacks this transparency. 7. Unverified Indexing Claims: While the website claims that its journals are indexed in databases like EBSCO, there is no independent verification of this, and inclusion in reputable databases is a crucial marker of legitimacy for academic journals. 8. Ambiguous Archiving Policies: The website mentions archiving with organizations like Portico and the Internet Archive, but it's unclear how this relates to the long-term accessibility and preservation of published articles. 9. Vague Mission and Vision Statements: The mission and vision statements are broad and lack specific details about the company's commitment to academic integrity and ethical publishing practices. 10. Unusual Whistleblowing Policy: While it's positive for organizations to have mechanisms for reporting concerns, the inclusion of a whistleblowing policy on the website is uncommon for academic publishers and may be an attempt to appear transparent. 11. Unsubstantiated Claims of Global Impact: The website's language about fostering a global community and accelerating the exchange of knowledge is vague and lacks evidence of real-world impact. 12. Ambiguous Privacy Policy: The privacy policy is not detailed and may not provide adequate protection for authors and users. 13. Inconsistent Language and Formatting: The website's language and formatting are inconsistent, which can be a sign of unprofessionalism. 14. Lack of Independent Reviews and Citations: A reputable publisher would have independent reviews and citations from other scholars and organizations, which are not readily available for this website. 15. Unusual Distribution of Management Staff: The website lists a large number of management staff with diverse locations, which could be an attempt to appear more established than it is. It's important to approach this website with caution and conduct further research before engaging with its services. Authors and researchers should consider submitting their work to established, reputable publishers with a demonstrable track record of ethical and transparent publishing practices."

• Lack of Credible Information, Unsubstantiated Financial Claims, High Percentage of Revenue from Discounts and Waivers, Unusual Allocation of Funds, Overemphasis on Founder's Credentials, Limited Information on Editorial Board and Review Process, Unverified Indexing Claims, Ambiguous Archiving Policies, Vague Mission and Vision Statements, Unusual Whistleblowing Policy, Unsubstantiated Claims of Global Impact, Ambiguous Privacy Policy, Inconsistent Language and Formatting, Lack of Independent Reviews and Citations, Unusual Distribution of Management Staff