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)

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? 
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

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
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. <> (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 

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

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:

The fake and bogus (but ISI indexed Journals) of IDOSI can be found here

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.


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.

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 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:

and published this text:

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:


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
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:

Sunday, 30 November 2014

The Indexing in ISI is also fake. The fake Publisher AIP (American Institute of Physics) indexes Proceedings of Fake Conferences in ISI!!!!

AIP (American Institute of Physics) publishes now the Proceedings of several fake conferences and the bogus ISI (A product of the Reuters Agency) still indexes these AIP-based fake/bogus/predatory conferences

Check yourself here:
At least 25% of these conferences are quite fake because they "review" only the Abstract of the Papers (but they "review" also your Credit Card or the Receipt from your Bank Deposit and charges you 600$-900$). It is apparent that the the Indexing in ISI is also fake and bogus because the ISI Clerks do not check at all the AIP (American Institute of Physics) publications.

Fake Conferences of WASET

We found this interesting alert for WASET Fake Conferences

Warning about fake conference on neural networks We have noticed the existence of an organisation claiming to organise the ICANN 2015 conference without any authorization from the ENNS. The organisation, called WASET, has a long history of “organising” thousands of conferences every year with the aim of earning money with the registration fees. The ENNS declines any relation with the above mentioned organisation and discourages anybody from participating to their events. The legit homepage for the ICANN 2015 will be announced on this homepage.

More information for the fake/bogus WASET conferences can be found here

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Concordia University in Montreal dismissed Adjunct Professor Petre Dini, owner of IARIA

Concordia University in Montreal dismissed Adjunct Petre Dini, owner of IARIA as one anonymous commentor says here
It is true. I try to find the name Petre Dini in the web pages of Concordia University in Montreal but I did not find anything
His name was in this page
but now it is not.

Saturday, 11 October 2014

What is the Reliability of ISI itself adding and removing journals from its indexing data base every month?

What is the Reliability of ISI itself adding and removing journals from its indexing data base every month?

Read this story:

100 Journals of the Pseudo-Publisher Hindawi lost their ISI Indexing and lost their Impact Factor. Why Hindawi Journals are fake independently on their Indexing

100 Journals of the Pseudo-Publisher Hindawi lost their ISI Indexing and lost their Impact Factor.


INDEXING of Hindawi now:

As you can see, Hindawi lost these Journals from ISI and ISI removed the Impact Factor of these journals.  

1) Journal of Applied Mathematics

2) Abstract and Applied Analysis

3) 98 journals inside The Scientific World Journal which is a collection of 98 separate journals

Totally Hindawi lost 100 (1+1+98) Journals from ISI
A big damage for their revenue and their profits. 
In these journals Hindawi asks 1200 -1600 USD to publish your "paper". A vanity press!

Why Hindawi Journals are fake independently on their Indexing 
1) Hindawi Journals do not have editor-in-chief

2) They don't have peer review

The review is quite skin and not real

3) A secretariat, usually a person without Ph.D. decides the acceptance of the papers

They demand a lot of money for rapid publication (Gold Pay-and-Publish Model)

5) They have accepted several  Garbage, SciGen (machine generated) articles.

6) Hindawi has bribed many indexes in the past

Will Hindawi return the money to authors that believed that these Journals are indexed in ISI and did pay for an ISI publication? 

Sunday, 28 September 2014

University of Minnesota: Would IEEE really sponsor a fake scientific conference?

University of Minnesota in one of its web pages writes:

Would IEEE really sponsor a fake scientific conference? Check it yourself here

Would IEEE really sponsor a fake scientific conference?

University of Minnesota writes:

The email was typical fake-scientific-conference-in-China spam: "we courteously invite you to deliver a Plenary Speech" as a "leading authority" in a field where I have no expertise. I've gotten several of these from "BIT Life Sciences."
This time, though, IEEE, a (formerly?) respectable engineering organization, was listed as a sponsor. I assumed the scam was using IEEE's name without permission, but the "6th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering " is actually listed on the IEEE web site. Apparently, IEEE has been involved in many fake conferences, which have, for example, accepted papers that are computer-generated garbage. Sad.
Not all conferences in China are fake -- I went to one a few years ago that was excellent, and am scheduled to speak at another -- and fake conferences are presumably held in other countries as well. China does seem to be afflicted with more than its share, though. Maybe it's harder to sue there, or something.
UPDATE -- someone left a comment with links to a blog suggesting that IEEE sponsors many fake conferences. Unfortunately, I had to delete the comment, because it linked to a blog attributing my concerns to "The University of Minnesota." The views presented here are my own, and not official positions of the university.


Don't jump to the conclusion so quickly that China seems to be afflicted with more than its share. The "problem" is caused by few people.
BIT Life Sciences is a private company and it is not associated to any scientific organization or research institute in China. It is doing the business! If you don't like it, set up your spam filter to get rid of its e-mails.
I did a quick search of Chinese web pages and found no negative comments with BIT Life Science. Instead, SCIRP is currently at the center of controversy. SCIRP publishes many online-only journals and also organizes conferences (some with IEEE involved!). If you look at its website (, you will find out that it is a company registered in the US. But physically it is located in China. If they publish printed journal articles without registration in China, it would be certainly illegible. However, for online publication, and especially when a foreign company is involved, there are some complexities in term of regulation.

Dr. Zhang,
Thanks for your comments. All of the inappropriate (i.e., random) speaking invitations I've gotten recently have been for meetings in China. But, as you suggest, none of them have been sponsored by Chinese research institutes. So these scams don't reflect badly on legitimate Chinese scientists or their institutions.

I am surprised that so many scientist are obsessed with the number of publications, maybe those organizations took advantage of this to make illegal money!

A conference is an awfully weird thing to fake. Very few people actually pay attention to those!

Yes I don't know how you can fake a conference.

Yes, IEEE sponsors several conferences. Some of them (with tha name and the logo of IEEE in the book) are really fake. These IEEE conferences have published many SCIgen Fake papers!!!

The IEEE did not give the registration back to a disabled person. Read more:

I do not understand what "fake conference" could mean. Papers are submitted, and actually presented. Then there is an hefty amount of money to pay to have the thing published in Xplore.
To me, that is not fake. IEEE is just proven to be a pathetic place that lives on its remaining reputation to get some dough, but this is not a rip-off. At most it is just largely below academic standards.

I do not agree with the previous commentor.
One more example is the IEEE fake conference

They claim that they have:
"Review duration: 15-20 days after submission"
Check it
How can a serious conference with hundred of papers to make review of all these papers within 15 days?
Our conclusion that seems to be the standard for the majority of IEEE is:
The IEEE conferences do not have any review. They work only for money
Google: IEEE fake papers
or IEEE Junk Conferences or IEEE bogus or IEEE scam

Fake IEEE MED conferences:
These conferences are organized by the "Mediterranean Control Association"
However, this "Association" is a Company based in USA by a Greek Professor.
We sent them two papers describing the equipment of our laboratory.
We copied the manual of Inverted Pendulum and we got the acceptance letter after
some days. So, for sure include in your fake conferences list the
Fake IEEE MED conferences

All the IEEE Conferences (organized by IEEE itselfor sponsored or co-sponsored or technically cosponsored by IEEE) are fake, junk, garbage, bogus, scam conferences.
Some of these conferences run only in the 1st or the 1st and 2nd day only and then they close. Obviously they try to save money from their hotel financial obligations.
IEEE, ACM, ASME and SIAM Conferences evaluate only the Abstract of the papers, even for the conferences that they claim evaluation on the full text.
have numerous times accepted and published SCIgen (automatically generated texts). Only for the IEEE, the Central Administration of IEEE found 1100 Conferences with fake, SCIgen papers.
Try yourself googling:
IEEE bogus
ASME bogus
SIAM bogus
ACM bogus
or visit

I participated in many IEEE Conferences in Malaysia and Singapore. I published 8 common papers and I had never received any comment, any remark, any question from IEEE, except sometime in 2011, that I got some minor remark about the format of my paper. These IEEE Conferences in Malaysia and Singapore are of dubious quality and maybe they are good schemes for making money for their organizers. We call them bogus, fake.
Dr Suhaidi Hassan

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Complaints and Reports for Fake Review in Hindawi Journals (They Publish also Fake Conference Proceedings)

Complaints and Reports for Fake Review in Hindawi Journals (They Publish also Fake Conference Proceedings)

In the Blog
we read: 
Hindawi journals are fake journals of the worst kind. They do not have Editor-in-Chief. Secretariats (some girls in Egypt) are authorized to review papers.
They have a fake address in USA to cheat people. Do not trust Hindawi. They have retract many papers. Hindawi is really a junk publisher. Hindawi also accept very easily rejected papers from conferences. Stay away from this academic-commercial house: Hindawi. It is fake and bogus.

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

More fake-scientific-conference spam from BIT Life Sciences

More fake-scientific-conference spam from BIT Life Sciences

Would you pay to go to a fake "scientific conference" in China where speakers were invited at random? What if the scientists they list as speakers hadn't actually agreed to speak? That seems to be the business model of BIT Life Sciences. For example, "Knut Buttnase" got invited to chair a session based on an abstract and CV that were obviously fake.
They're getting more sophisticated, though. They're still inviting me to speak on topics I know nothing about -- "Fungal Bioenergy", most recently -- but their software now inserts the title of a recent paper into the email. 
"Since we have learnt that you are making valuable contributions to INSERT TITLE HERE, your unique inspirational message will be the perfect way to kick off the congress."
I guess the idea is that, if 5% of the people they email have some connection to the conference topic, some of those people will be fooled into signing up. But that might not work, for people who have already received lots of spam from them. Also, anyone who Googles "BIT Life Sciences" would hesitate to send them money. So I predict that their next move will be to change their name.
They are listing some real scientists as speakers. Apparently they've done that in the past, without bothering to make sure the claimed speakers were in the right field. The speakers they're listing now look OK, but the one I checked with emails that:
"I didn't agree to speak, after they invited me I declined citing lack of funds to justify such a trip and they offered to waive the conference fee [maybe they get kickbacks from the hotel? -- Ford] only so I said no. I guess I should ask them to take my name of their list."
I'll update this post if they actually remove his name. If not, they're not only spammers, but guilty of fraud.

Fake Journals sent us this SPAM. We strongly recommend you to avoid any relation with this kind of Fake Journals and this Junk, India-based, Publisher.

Fake Journals sent us this SPAM. We strongly recommend you to avoid any relation with this kind of Fake Journals and this Junk, India-based, Publisher.

Their SPAM:

(Replies will be acknowledged only on the mail, so kindly do not reply on the present or any other e-mail id, as the same will not be considered at all)

(ISSN 0976 – 2183)
(ISSN 2231 – 1009)
(ISSN 2231 – 4245)
(ISSN 2231 – 5756)
Indexed & Listed at:
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, ProQuest, U.S.A.;
EBSCO Publishing, U.S.A.;
Cabell's Directories of Publishing Opp., U.S.A.;
Open J-Gate, India [link of the same is duly available at Inflibnet of University Grants Commission (U.G.C.)];
The American Economic Association's electronic bibliography, EconLit, U.S.A.; 1st &3rd journal
Index Copernicus Publishers Panel, Poland with IC Value of 5.09 & number of libraries all around the world.
Circulated all over the world & Google has verified that scholars of more than 3480 Cities in 174 countries/territories are visiting our journals on regular basis.
A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed (Refereed/Juried) OA International Journals
Included in the International Serial Directories

Dear Author (s)

At the very outset, do accept my greetings & regards.

I am to forward the links containing the copies of the Full Issue as well as Abstractsof the current issue and also of the previous issues of our Journals, circulated all over the world and Google has verified that scholars of more than 3480 Cities in 174 countries/territories are visiting our journals on regular basis, for your ready reference.

It is important to mention here that we have published 4543 quality Research Papers/Manuscripts, belonging to 7694 authors of different countries and have more than 7,20,000 visits of researchers on our website, who have made more than18,10,000 downloads till date.


You may submit the soft copy of unpublished novel; original; empirical and high quality research work/manuscript anytime in M.S. Word format after preparing the same as per our GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION; at our email address or online by clicking the link online submission as given on our website (FOR ONLINE SUBMISSION, CLICK HERE) pertaining to recent developments & practices in the areas of Computer Science & Applications; Commerce; Business; Finance; Marketing; Human Resource Management; General Management; Banking; Economics; Tourism Administration & Management; Edu. [B. Ed., M. Ed., M. Phil. (Edu.) & Ph. D. (Edu)]; Law; Library & Information Science; Defence & Strategic Studies; Electronic Science; Corporate Governance; Industrial Relations; and emerging paradigms in allied subjects like Accounting; Accounting Information Systems; Accounting Theory & Practice; Auditing; Behavioral Accounting; Behavioral Economics; Corporate Finance; Cost Accounting; Economic Development; Economic History; Financial Institutions & Markets; Financial Services; Fiscal Policy; Government & Non Profit Accounting; Industrial Organization; International Economics & Trade; International Finance; Macro Economics; Micro Economics; Rural Economics; Co-operation; Demography: Development Planning; Development Studies; Econometrics; Applied Economics; Development Economics; Business Economics; Monetary Policy; Public Policy Economics; Real Estate; Regional Economics; Political Science; Continuing Edu.; Labour Welfare; Philosophy; Psychology; Sociology; Tax Accounting; Advertising & Promotion Management; Management Information Systems (MIS); Business Law; Public Responsibility & Ethics; Communication; Direct Marketing; E-Commerce; Global Business; Health Care Administration; Labour Relations & Human Resource Management; Marketing Research; Marketing Theory & Applications; Non-Profit Organizations; Office Administration/Management; Operations Research/Statistics; Organizational Behavior & Theory; Organizational Development; Production/Operations; International Relations; Human Rights & Duties; Public Administration; Population Studies; Purchasing/Materials Management; Retailing; Sales/Selling; Services; Small Business Entrepreneurship; Strategic Management Policy; Technology/Innovation; Tourism & Hospitality; Transportation Distribution; Algorithms; Artificial Intelligence; Compilers & Translation; Computer Aided Design (CAD); Computer Aided Manufacturing; Computer Graphics; Computer Organization & Architecture; Database Structures & Systems; Discrete Structures; Internet; Management Information Systems; Modeling & Simulation; Neural Systems/Neural Networks; Numerical Analysis/Scientific Computing; Object Oriented Programming; Operating Systems; Programming Languages; Robotics; Symbolic & Formal Logic; Web Design and emerging paradigms in allied subjects.

If your good self have any queries, please contact us on the above-mentioned mail address.

Hoping an appropriate consideration by your good self.

With sincere regards

Thanking you profoundly

Academically yours

Superintendent for Co-ordinator