Wednesday, 11 February 2015

One more fake IEEE conference in the conference market. No Chairman, No committee, No reviewers, but too much spam. Enjoy the SPAM from one more BOGUS, FAKE, COMMERCIAL, SHAM, SCAM IEEE Conference

One more fake IEEE conference in the conference market. No Chairman, No committee, No reviewers, but too much spam. Isn't it IEEE the Publisher who publishes the Fake, SCIgen, absolutely junk papers? See: http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
Enjoy the following SPAM from one more BOGUS, FAKE, COMMERCIAL, SHAM, SCAM IEEE Conference. 


IEEE Technically Sponsored SAI Intelligent Systems Conference 2015 (IntelliSys 2015) 
November 10-11, 2015
London, UK
 
The Science and Information Organization is hosting the SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys 2015) from November 10-11, 2015 in London, UK. This conference will focus in areas of intelligent systems and artificial intelligence and how it applies to the real world. It is an opportunity for researchers in this field to meet and discuss solutions, scientific results, and methods in solving intriguing problems in this field.

The conference programme will include paper presentations, poster sessions and project demonstrations, along with prominent keynote speakers and industrial workshops. IntelliSys 2015 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, UKRI Chapter.

Important Dates: Early Bird Submission (Submit early and save £50!)
  • Paper Submission Due: March 01, 2015
  • Acceptance Notification : April 01, 2015
  • Author Registration : May 01, 2015
  • Camera Ready Submission : June 01, 2015
  • Conference Dates : November 10-11, 2015
 
All IntelliSys 2015 presented papers will be submitted to IEEE Xplore and indexed in various international databases like Scopus, Inspec, Google Scholar and more. Past SAI Conference proceedings are already indexed in these databases. Authors of selected outstanding papers will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for consideration of publication in various international journals and books.
 
Honorary Chairs
Dr. Lotfi A. Zadeh, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Kevin Warwick, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at Coventry University, UK
Dr. David Fogel, President of Natural Selection, Inc., USA
 
Looking forward to your contribution. 

Regards,
Steering Committee
SAI Intelligent Systems Conference 2015 (IntelliSys 2015)
www.SAIConference.com/IntelliSys2015
facebook.com/SAIConference | twitter.com/SAIConference

WORLD SCIENTIFIC: An Absolutely Predatory Spammer. WORLD SCIENTIFIC has accepted and Published over than 250 garbage (fake, SCIgen) papers within the recent 5 years. Enjoy their SPAM. Our Blog reports the fake and bogus publishers - Sharks of the Academic World. We do not shoot only the small publishers. Every garbage-conference can publish its proceedings with World Scientific and/or Imperial College Press provided that the organizer will pay these fully commercial (for profit only!) publishers.

SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
WORLD SCIENTIFIC: An Absolutely Predatory Spammer. WORLD SCIENTIFIC has accepted and Published over than 250 garbage (fake, SCIgen) papers within the recent 5 years.
See:
http://fakeconferences.blogspot.com/2014/03/spam-from-bogus-fake-junk-world.html
Enjoy their SPAM. Our Blog reports the fake and  bogus publishers - Sharks of the Academic World. We do not shoot only the small publishers. We report small and big FAKE, BOGUS Publishers. Every garbage-conference can publish its proceedings with World Scientific and/or Imperial College Press provided that the organizer will pay these fully commercial (for profit only!) publishers.




World Scientific
Imperial College Press
Engineering / Acoustics
New TitlesBestsellersE-Catalogue
NEW TITLESBESTSELLERSE-CATALOGUES
Dear Researcher,
We are pleased to introduce the following title that may be of interest to you. If you like what you see, do recommend it to your library and colleagues.
Elements of Fluid Dynamics
ICP Fluid Mechanics: Volume 3
Elements of Fluid Dynamics
by Guido Buresti (University of Pisa, Italy)Buy Now
Apply this discount code to enjoy 20% off
Discount Code: WSFEB20 | till 18 February 2015
softcover:US$68 / £45 / S$90 US$54.40 / £36 / S$72
hardcover:US$138 / £91 / S$182 US$110.40 / £72.80 / S$145.60
Elements of Fluid Dynamics is intended to be a basic textbook, useful for undergraduate and graduate students in different fields of engineering, as well as in physics and applied mathematics. The main objective of the book is to provide an introduction to fluid dynamics in a simultaneously rigorous and accessible way, and its approach follows the idea that both the generation mechanisms and the main features of the fluid dynamic loads can be satisfactorily understood only after the equations of fluid motion and all their physical and mathematical implications have been thoroughly assimilated. Therefore, the complete equations of motion of a compressible viscous fluid are first derived and their physical and mathematical aspects are thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, the necessity of simplified treatments is highlighted, and a detailed analysis is made of the assumptions and range of applicability of the incompressible flow model, which is then adopted for most of the rest of the book. Furthermore, the role of the generation and dynamics of vorticity on the development of different flows is emphasized, as well as its influence on the characteristics, magnitude and predictability of the fluid dynamic loads acting on moving bodies.
FREE SAMPLE CHAPTER(S)
pdf fileTable of Contents (53 KB)
pdf fileChapter 1: Introduction (133 KB)
You may also be interested in:
Direct Modeling for
                                                Computational Fluid
                                                Dynamics
Direct Modeling for Computational Fluid Dynamics
Adaptive High-Order
                                                Methods in Computational
                                                Fluid Dynamics
Adaptive High-Order Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics
Lectures on
                                                Computational Fluid
                                                Dynamics, Mathematical
                                                Physics, and Linear
                                                Algebra
Lectures on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Mathematical Physics, and Linear Algebra
Terms & Conditions
An ordering guide can be found here.
Prices are subject to change without prior notice.
This promotion is available only to individuals purchasing directly from World Scientific's web site. It is not available to libraries and booksellers.
Not available in India and SAARC countries
Promotion is valid while stocks last. Delivery may be delayed up to 2 months due to high demand.
S$ price is valid for Singapore and China markets only.


Monday, 9 February 2015

Endless FAKE, BOGUS, CRIMINAL, PREDATORY IEEE and ACM Conferences. All the Proofs are here.... Hundreds of SCIgen (completely machine generated papers) are published in IEEE every year (Google: Cyril Labbe IEEE)

Endless FAKE, BOGUS, CRIMINAL, PREDATORY IEEE and ACM Conferences:

All the Proofs are here.... Hundreds of SCIgen (completely machine generated papers) are published in IEEE every year (Google: Cyril Labbe IEEE)
The blog  http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/ reveals the dark role of ACM and IEEE:
They discovered an IEEE/ACM crappy event (they called it ... conference) that publish in the same Proceedings all the junk and garbage of the academia:
In the same volume they publish everything: Full Papers, Short Notes, Abstracts, Demos, Power Point Presentations, Exhibitions, Book Inspections, Seminars and Proposals for Projects. The most junk and the most predatory fake IEEE / fake ACM conference is here:
The blog  http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/ reported today:

Fake IEEE Conference is cosponsored by ... ACM, publishes Full Papers, Short Notes, Abstracts, Demos, Power Point Presentations, Exhibitions, Book Inspections, Seminars and Proposals for Projects in the same volume! Shame IEEE!
This is the SPAM of the IEEE/ACM Fake, Bogus, Predatory, Scam, Sham, Junk Conference. Low quality and NO REVIEWERS at all.

IEEE/ACM ASONAM 2015
The 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining
Paris, France, August 25-28, 2015

Dear Colleague,You are invited and highly encouraged to consider submitting your high quality original manuscripts to the flagship venue and premier conference in the area of social network analysis and mining (ASONAM 2015) or one of the co-located events.

All types of submissions are welcome, including full papers, short papers, extended abstracts, posters, demos.

You may consider one of the following options:

Main Research Papers Track: For more information visit: http://asonam.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/

Industrial Track: For more information visit: http://asonam.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/CFPInd.php

PhD Forum and Posters Track: For more information visit:

Multidisciplinary Track: For more information visit:

Exhibitions and Demos Track: For more information visit: http://asonam.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/CPED.php

FOSINT-SI 2015: The 2015 International Symposium on Foundations of Open Source Intelligence and Security Informatics; Paris, France, August 27-28, 2015. For more information visit: http://fosint-si.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/

 

HI-BI-BI 2015: The 2015 International Symposium on Network Enabled Health Informatics, Biomedicine and Bioinformatics,  Paris, France, August 26-27, 2015. (Submissions are due April 18). For more information visit: http://hi-bi-bi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/

All accepted papers will be published in the proceedings which will be included in the digital libraries of both sponsors: ACM and IEEE Computer Society.

Following the trend from previous years, extended versions of accepted papers from ASONAM 2015 will be invited for publication in one of the following prestigious venues by Springer:

1. Social Networks Analysis and Mining Journal

2. Network Modeling Analysis in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics Journal  http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/13721

3. Edited book in the Lecture Notes in Social Networks Series

Saturday, 10 January 2015

ELSEVIER, SPRINGER, JOHN WILEY and SONS: The Sharks of Academic Life. The Excessively Predatory Publishers

All are in the for-profit sector, and the profits are enormous. As reported in the Economist (2011): “ Elsevier, the biggest publisher of journals with almost 2,000 titles, cruised through the recession. Last year it made £724m ($1.1 billion) on revenues of £2 billion—an operating-profit margin of 36%”. Springer’s Science + Business Media (2010) reported a return on sales (operating profit) of 33.9% or € 294 million on revenue of € 866 million, an increase of 4% over the profit of the previous year. In the first quarter of 2012, John Wiley & Sons (2011) reported profit of $106million for their scientific, medical, technical and scholarly division onrevenue of $253 million, a profit rate of 42%. This represents an increase in the profit rate of 13% over the previous year. The operating profit rate for the academic division of Informa.plc (2011, p. 4) for the first half of 2011 was 32.4%, or £47 million on revenue of £145 million, an increase of 3.3% over the profit of the previous year.
Scholarly Communication in Crisis by Heather Morrison (Open access)
Source: http://neurobonkers.com/2012/01/16/is-this-journal-for-real-scientific-and-academic-publishing/

These huge profit margins are not only increasing far above the rate of inflation but publishers are now actively forcing third world countries out of academia
To our dismay and anger, a few international STM publishers, using their monopolistic position, recently demand to raise the subscription prices for their full-text database at a yearly rate of more than 14% for the next 3 years and by 2020, to raise the prices for developing countries to the level of those of the developed countries.
National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2010) cited in Scholarly Communication in Crisis by Heather Morrison (Open access)
We expect our institutions to spend millions on journal subscriptions, this is deemed essential so the fruits of knowledge help fund the research of the future. The system fails when over a third of the cash-flow is creamed off the scientific process during the publishing stage. Moreover, all those outside leading western universities are left without access to journals (assuming they do not have $799 dollars plus to spare for a subscription or $25 for one-time access, for one day, at one computer (Sage, 2011). Ironically much research is therefore unavailable to the very people it is designed to help.  This problem is something all scientists should be aware of, perhaps not only the Medline ranking but also the profit margins of publishers should be a key consideration of what journal to publish with. (Edit 16/01/2012: On the topic of impact factors, it has been revealed that some publishers are now requiring researchers to cite recent research from their own journal in a bid to artificially boost their journal’s rankings, a very dodgy practice indeed.)
The cruel irony is that for research to be placed under lock and key in a for-profit journal, the researcher will have paid for education and time spent researching; then the researcher’s institution must spend hundreds on hotel fees and flights as well as many hundreds of pounds for a conference ticket, plus an insertion fee, often based on the number of pages in the publication (as is the procedure in the world’s largest engineering journal). Even open access publishers charge hefty fees, BioMedCentral’s fee of $1,640 is described as average, even PLoS charge $1,300 to $2,900 to publish. Surely a happy medium can be found, unfortunately for Scientific & Academic Publishing, USA the blunderbuss approach is unlikely to be the way to the hearts and minds of the academic community but we shall have to wait and see.
Upon discovering that research isn’t published in a reputable journal, perhaps the real question on our lips should not be is this journal for real? But rather, has thisresearcher proven that they have applied appropriate rigorous controls and is there a free and fair forum for the researcher’s conclusions to be questioned? 
Reference:
Morrison, Heather. (2012). Scholarly Communication in Crisis. Freedom for scholarship in the internet age. Simon Fraser University School of Communication. Doctoral dissertation (in process)
Update 16/01/2012: Further reading from today’s Guardian: Academic publishers have become the enemies of science
From:  http://neurobonkers.com/2012/01/16/is-this-journal-for-real-scientific-and-academic-publishing/

The real Predatory, Unethical and Bogus Publishers: Journals of Springer Verlag and Elsevier were caught for plagiarism, but they do NOT remove the plagiarized articles.

The real Predatory, Unethical and Bogus Publishers:  Journals of Springer Verlag and Elsevier were caught for plagiarism, but they do NOT remove the plagiarized articles inspite the requests of the victims!


hydrogeology journalIn April 2014, we wrote about the case of a former hydrologist at the University of Kansas (KU), Marios Sophocleous, who had plagiarized in at least seven studies, two of which were retracted by the journal Ground Water.
At the time, we mentioned two other articles, in the Hydrogeology Journal, that appeared destined for retraction — not least because KU requested that the journal yank them. But in a rather surprising move, the journal is declining to do so, and another publication, the Journal of Hydrology, is taking the same approach.
Here’s the notice from Hydrogeology Journal editor Clifford Voss:
In late February 2013, the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS), a research and service division of the University of Kansas (KU), found that a number of papers written by a then staff member, Dr. Marios Sophocleous (retired from KGS in June 2013), appeared to have been plagiarized from earlier work. KU explained to Hydrogeology Journal that, following multi-stage investigations, which included opportunities for Dr. Sophocleous to explain his actions, KU concluded that Dr. Sophocleous had committed scholarly misconduct. KU then publicly censured him (University of Kansas 2013).
Two of the seven articles cited in the censure statement appeared in Hydrogeology Journal (HJ) and KU has requested of publisher Springer and the HJ executive editor (EE) that both be retracted. KU provided a detailed analysis of each paper, indicating which passages were plagiarized and the source of the plagiarized material; these analyses are available from KGS upon request.
The two articles are:
The EE and publisher, Springer, did independent reviews of the papers and agree with KU that a large portion of the text was copied verbatim from previous articles written by other authors. The copied passages all lacked quotation marks to indicate that they were directly quoted from previous works.
The EE’s assessment is as follows. In most cases, the reference from which the material was copied verbatim is given close by in the text by Sophocleous. Thus, Sophocleous did not claim that the copied ideas were his own; however, Sophocleous neglected to indicate that he had not composed these passages by including quotation marks around copied text. It is clear that review articles normally consist of information compiled from previous works, but text copied verbatim must be enclosed in quotation marks. Thus, the copied unquoted text must be strictly considered as plagiarism, but Sophocleous’ referencing of most copied passages indicates that he was giving credit to the previous authors from which he copied, and not hiding the fact that the material was not his own. In a positive view, his error might be considered to be a technical one, in which he neglected to use quotation marks; however, the EE and Springer agree with KU that this style of presenting information from previous works, even in review articles, is unacceptable.
KU has stated that it views these papers as compilations of plagiarized material and has requested they be withdrawn to demonstrate to the hydrological community that such practices cannot be tolerated. One response to the KU retraction request that was considered by the EE was to republish the two articles with all necessary quotation marks in place; however, this would appear peculiar as a large portion of the text in each article would be within quotes. This makes it clear that reviewers would have rejected a manuscript composed of largely quoted material.
In deciding how to respond to the retraction request, the EE has also considered the value of these two articles to the scientific readership. Both articles are reviews of their subject matter, not presentations of new scientific results. These HJ articles are highly cited and indeed, one is among the most highly cited of all time in HJ. Thus, both articles were and are still of clear value to the scientific community. Therefore, the EE has concluded that retraction would be a disservice to the community.
KU disagrees with the conclusion of the EE and continues to assert that both papers should be retracted. However, in the interest of bringing the matter to a close, KU has agreed to accept publication of this Editor’s Message in place of retraction, given that a link to this is attached to both papers in the Springer online archives.
And here’s the notice from Corrado Corradini, who edits the Journal of Hydrology:
On January 6, 2014 the University of Kansas contacted the editorial team of Journal of Hydrology about the following situation:
In late February 2013, the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS), a research and service division of the University of Kansas, found that a number of articles written by a then staff member, Dr. Marios Sophocleous (retired from the KGS in June 2013), appeared to be influenced by plagiarism. On December 11, 2013, after an analysis of the Investigating Committee, the University of Kansas concluded that Dr. Sophocleous had committed scholarly misconduct relating to plagiarism and self-plagiarism and it publicly censured him at:news.ku.edu/2013/12/11/public-censure.
In the communication to the Journal of Hydrology on January 6, 2014 the KGS specified that according to the committee the following articles contained substantial plagiarized passages:
(1) Sophocleous, M.A., 2012. The evolution of groundwater management paradigms in Kansas and possible new steps towards water sustainability. Journal of Hydrology, 414–415, 550–559.
(2) Sophocleous, M.A., 2000. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources the Kansas experience. Journal of Hydrology, 235(1–2), 27–43.
As an Editor in Chief of Journal of Hydrology for the subsurface water area, I have examined these two papers together with all the references the Committee esteems have been plagiarized.
Many sentences of the two manuscripts are really paraphrased or reproduced from papers earlier published and their identification by the Committee of the University of Kansas is substantially accurate.
The paper by Sophocleous (2000) is a critical overview which uses the Kansas experience as a support. The paper by Sophocleous (2012) is neither a technical nor review paper but comprises an historical description of acts and procedures enacted by Institutions of the Kansas State. To some extent, these typologies of works need to include paraphrasing or reproduce text from previous publications, even though the above mentioned papers contain an excess of these kind of quotes to former studies. All the source papers are substantially cited in the vicinity of the parts paraphrased or reported in the same form, however not placed between quotation marks. In addition, these parts of text are rearranged in a different framework and under different contexts for different audiences. The relatively high number of citations highlights the important role of these two papers.
I realized that at the time of the submissions, the team of Journal of Hydrology was unable to notice the problems linked with the two papers. In fact, most source papers quoted are technical reports or local publications, practically inaccessible to the editors who handled the review processes as well as to the reviewers. Most source papers are currently not identifiable by the plagiarism detection software because they are absent from the widely used database systems.
I would also like to clarify, the Journal of Hydrology was informed of the allegations of plagiarism and self-plagiarism only 2 and 14 years after the publication of Sophocleous (2000) and Sophocleous (2012), respectively.
An overall analysis of the aforementioned elements leads me to exclude the retraction of the two papers and to write this Editorial Note summarizing the critical elements discussed and my conclusions.
For the sake of completeness the main source papers involved are given below.
A substantial part of the reproduced material in Sophocleous (2012) derives from:
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2010. Review: groundwater management practices, challenges, and innovations in the high plains aquifer, USA: lessons and recommended actions. Hydrogeol. J. 18 (3), 559–575;
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2011. Groundwater legal framework and management practices in the high plains aquifer, USA. In: Findikakis, A.N., Sato, K. (Eds.), Groundwater Management Practices, IAHR Monograph Series. CRC Press, pp. 325–366; and significant contributions are also derived from:
– Aiken, J.D., 1980. Nebraska Ground Water Law and Administration. Faculty Publications: Agricultural Economics. Paper 30;
– Golden, B.B., Peterson, J.M., 2006. Evaluation of Water Conservation from More Efficient Irrigation Systems. Staff Paper No. 06-03, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 70p. <http://www.agmanager.info/policy/water/Peterson-K_State_report_final.pdf> (accessed 17.07.11);
– Peck, J.C., 2006. Groundwater management in Kansas: a brief history and assessment. Kansas J. Law Public Policy 25 (3), 505–516;
– Peck J.C., 2007, Groundwater management in the high plains aquifer. In: Mark Giardano, Karen G. Villholth (Eds.), The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution. Opportunities and Threats to development. pp. 296–319;
– Rolfs, L.E., 2006. Comparing and contrasting the roles of the Division of Water Resources and the Groundwater Management Districts in groundwater management and regulation. Kansas J. Law Public Policy 25 (3), 441–465.
The main part of the reproduced sentences in Sophocleous (2000) is taken from:
– Sophocleous, M.A., 1998. On the elusive concept of safe yield and the response of interconnected stream-aquifer systems to development. In: Sophocleous, M.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development of Water Resources in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin, 239, pp. 6–85; but a significant part derives also from:
–  Balleau, W.P., 1988. Water approximation and transfer in a general hydrogeologic system. Natural Resources Journal 29 (2), 269–291;
– Bredehoeft, J.D., Papadopulos, S.S., Cooper Jr., H.H., 1982. Groundwater: The Water Budget Myth. In: Scientific Basis of Water Resource Management. National Academy Press, Studies in Geophysics, pp. 51–57;
– Sophocleous, M.A., Buddemeier, R.W., Buchanan, R.C., 1998. Evolving sustainability concepts: Modern developments and the Kansas Experience. In: Sophocleous, M.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development of Water Resources in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin 239, pp. 86–95;
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2000. The origin and evolution of safe yield policies in the Kansas Groundwater Management Districts. Natural Resources Research 9 (2), 99–110.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the University of Kansas, despite having arrived to a different conclusion than my own, has agreed to accept that an Editorial Note is published, given that a link to this note is attached to both articles in the Elsevier online archives. This note will hopefully bring the matter at hand to a close.
The editorial, we should note, is behind a paywall.
Now, we’re all for editors having leeway, but this decision, to put it mildly, is a very slippery slope. On the one hand, we agree that retraction is a blunt instrument that at times is the least best option. On the other, neglecting to retract because an article is “of clear value to the scientific community” is pretty porous rock: Science has standards, some of which should be inviolate.
Voss seems to agree. He told us:
Fabrication of data or results is never acceptable and should never be allowed. Had fabrication been the case regarding Sophocleus, we would have retracted.
In the Sophocleus case, there was a lack of quotation marks, but all quoted material was carefully referenced by the author. The public plagiarism discussion lead by Univ of Kansas will be enough to make the point to the scientific community that excessive quoting and lack of quotation marks is not a professional way to write articles. Sophocleus did great work in writing those papers and these still provide valuable information and compilations for hydrologists – however, his style of composition was lacking.
=============================================================

BIT Life Sciences fake conferences

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2013/02/more_fake-scientific-conferenc.html 

Friday, 2 January 2015

One more proof for the fraud of the ISI (Thomson Reuters). Fake, Bogus, Commercial, Scam Index. Big crimes of the ISI Index. Do you still respect the ISI index and its commercial (just for money -- like IEEE) indexing??

IDOSI, a well-known bogus and low-quality publisher, a vanity press, has tided over 7 bogus and fake Journals indexed in ... ISI (The real ISI, that of Thomson Reuters!)
Obviously IDOSI bribed the ISI and contrived a questionable ISI Indexing for its 7 fake Journals. Check it yourself
http://idosi.org/

The worst of all is that ISI did not notice that, instead of offices, IDOSI (a company of a Pakistanian Individual) uses a P.O. Box in ... Dubai, because IDOSI is actually an offshore company in Dubai.
Check it:
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=ACADEMIC%20JOURNAL%20OF%20ENTOMOLOGY

http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1818-6769

http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=American-Eurasian%20Journal%20of%20Toxicological%20Sciences

The fake and bogus (but ISI indexed Journals) of IDOSI can be found here http://idosi.org/

Actually, these are the usual big crimes of the ISI Index. 

Pay and Index your Journal(s) and your vanity press - scam publisher in ISI. It is easy, now!

Do you still respect the ISI index and its commercial (just for money -- like IEEE) indexing??

Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Do you understand now how commercial, bogus and fake is the ISI Indexing System itself? One more example of the Fake and Commercial ISI Index. ISI Indexes the Fake Publisher BIOMED CENTRAL. BIOMED CENTRAL discovered 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

One more example of the Fake and Commercial ISI Index. ISI Indexes the Fake Publisher BIOMED CENTRAL.

BIOMED CENTRAL charges 1000-1800 USD per paper (from them a commission-kickback goes to ISI Thomson to index them)
They have fake review.
BIOMED CENTRAL discovered 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

BioMed Central has uncovered about fifty manuscripts in their editorial system that involved fake peer reviewers. BIOMED Central is a bogus publisher that pays a lot of money to ISI (Thomson) Fake index to publish its nonsense and garbage papers.

Most of the cases were not published because they were discovered by a manuscript editor on a final pre-publication check. The five or so that have been published will go through some sort of re-review, which may result in expressions of concern or retraction.

The narrative seems similar to that in the growing number of cases of peer review manipulation we’ve seen recently. What tipped off the editor was minor spelling mistakes in the reviewers’ names, and odd non-institutional email addresses that were often changed once reviews had been submitted, in an apparent attempt to cover the fakers’ tracks. Those “reviewers” had turned in reports across several journals, spanning several subjects.

It would seem that a third party, perhaps marketing services helping authors have papers accepted, was involved.

The publisher has let all of its external editors in chief know about the situation. To prevent it from happening again, authors will not be able to recommend reviewers for their papers. Here’s a message from BioMed Central senior managing editor Diana Marshall that went out to a number of journal editors earlier today:

We need to inform you of a situation that has come to light on several journals involving potentially fake peer reviewers.

When completing final editorial checks on a manuscript an in-house Editor spotted irregularities in reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers. Further investigation suggests that the reviewers have been fabricated. By searching systematically across our systems we have uncovered a number of cases of these potentially fake peer reviewers returning reports across several journals including a number in the BMC series.

There doesn’t seem to be an obvious link between the authors as they are different in each case. We are concerned that a third party is involved, possibly supplying the names of fake reviewers to authors to influence the peer review process. While we investigate further we will temporarily switch off the functionality which allows authors to suggest potential peer reviewers directly into our workflows. This change will come into effect in the next few days.

We appreciate this may cause concern but given the level of sophisticated fraud that appears to be taking place we hope you will understand.

We will be in touch with individual Editors if manuscripts you have handled have been directly affected and if your attention is required for individual cases.

In completing our checks and balances on a manuscript, one of our in-house editors spotted problems in reports from author-suggested reviewers. Since this was flagged, we have searched our systems and found several potential false reviewer accounts that seem to have returned peer review reports to several of our journals. At present this amounts to around 50 manuscripts, the majority of which have not been published and are held in our systems.

We cannot see a clear link between the authors and believe that a third party may be involved, and influencing the peer review process.

At this stage we are investigating further and the manuscripts are on hold. We have informed our staff and external editors and are switching off the functionality that allows authors to suggest potential peer reviewers directly into our systems while we look into the issue in more depth.

Journals have retracted more than 100 papers in the past two years for fake peer reviews, many of which were written by the authors themselves.

Update, 2 p.m. Eastern, 11/25/14: Based on additional information, clarified headline and first line of post to reflect that most of the 50 manuscripts were somewhere in the editorial process, not accepted. BioMed Central also tells us that in many cases, editors did not use the author-suggested reviewers, but nevertheless held the manuscript after noticing the irregularities.

Source: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/25/publisher-discovers-50-papers-accepted-based-on-fake-peer-reviews/

Do you understand now how commercial, bogus and fake is the ISI Indexing System itself?

Friday, 26 December 2014

Cyril Labbe reported that 317 fake and bogus SCIgen papers were accepted and published in IEEE Xplore only withing 2014. All these fake and bogus SCIgen papers are still indexed in the Fake ISI (Thomson) Web of Knowledge crappy index.

Cyril Labbe reported that 317 fake and bogus SCIgen papers were accepted and published in IEEE Xplore only withing 2014. All these fake and bogus SCIgen papers are still indexed in the Fake ISI (Thomson) Web of Knowledge crappy index.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/24/springer-ieee-withdrawing-more-than-120-nonsense-papers/

Monday, 15 December 2014

Prof. Waldemar W. Koczkodaj discovered a Fake Paper published in an ELSEVIER Journal and Indexed in the Fake ACM Index

Prof. Waldemar W. Koczkodaj discovered a Fake Paper published in an ELSEVIER Journal (Journal Mathematical and Computer Modelling) and Indexed in the Fake ACM Index
Fake Paper is still on the web http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2249754 as of December 15, 2014

Prof. Waldemar W. Koczkodaj says:
Fuzzy set theory has serious difficulties in producing valid answers in decision-making by fuzzifying judgments. No theorems are available about its workability when it is applied indiscriminately as a number crunching approach to numerical measurements that represent judgments.

published in:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2249754

and published this text:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6272

in Fundamenta Informaticae 132 (2014) 485–500

It contains two counter-examples and theory invalidating AHP. Its proponent has generated a little bit controversy here:

www.ams.org/notices/201403/rnoti-p240.pdf

and

http://www.ams.org/publications/david-vogan-letter

I wonder what do you think about it and if anyone of you would like to join forces with me in drafting a one page summary why fuzzy set theory may be helpful in pairwise comparisons, used for the first time by R. Llull in 13 century.

With kind regards,

Waldemar W. Koczkodaj
--
Waldemar W. Koczkodaj
(Professor)
http://www.cs.laurentian.ca/wkoczkodaj/info.html
http://scholar.google.ca/citations?hl=en&user=N3hztTAAAAAJ
tel. 705-675-1151 x.2311

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

ISI (Thomson Reuters) is a Fake Index. Fake IEEE Conferences,Fake Elsevier Journals and Fake Springer Verlag Proceedings have been indexed in ISI

Fake IEEE Conferences have been indexed in ISI.
ISI does not check the quality of conference proceedings and does not ask the authors if their papers received peer review.
Our conclusion is that ISI is also a Fake Index.
It is strict in some sense but its indexing is arbitrary.
If your conference proceedings write IEEE, Springer, Elsevier, then the ISI will index them without questions and discussion.
ISI has also indexed all the Fake IEEE Conferences as well as the Fake Elsevier Journals and Fake Springer Verlag Proceedings. On the contrary conferences of many honest professors and honest organizations are not in ISI also arbitrarily. Please, spread this information over your academic newtwork and your academic authorities.
We have the prroof and the evidence:

Check yourself how Fake, Bogus, Unethical and Crappy is the ISI here:
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2011/07/would_ieee_really_sponsor_a_fa.html