Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Sandy

August 25, 2015, 8:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

≪ Previous: Comment on The OMICS Publishing Group’s Empire is Expanding by Sandy

Further information on AUSTIN PUBLISHERS (http://austinpublishinggroup.org) & SM GROUP (http://smjournals.com) I received from a professor:

1. MAHENDRA REDDY CHIRRA (alias, Mahi Ch)
Position: Owner (Director) of Austin Group Publisher and SM Group Publisher
Fathers Name: Venkateswara Reddy Chirra
Date of Birth: Sep 02, 1982 (32 years old)
Gender: Male
Unique Director Identification Number from Ministry of Corporate Affairs, India (DIN): 06796131
Emails used by Mahendra for website and company registration: mahi.ch999@gmail.com
Companies: Austin Publishers Private Limited (Austin Group) &
SM Medical Technologies Private Limited (or SM Online Publishers)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/mahi.ch.505
(Mahendra deleted this facebook page on August 09, 2015 after Austin Group Received complaints. This action corroborates that he is the person involved)

2. SIVA PARVATHI CHIRRA (alias, Siva Vellaturi)
Position: Owner (Director) of Austin Group Publisher
Fathers Name: Viswanadha Rao Velleturi
Date of Birth: Aug 20, 1985 (29 years old)
Gender: Female
Unique Director Identification Number from Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), India (DIN): 06796135
Companies: Austin Publishers Private Limited (Austin Group)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004228216478
(Similarly, Siva deleted her facebook page on August 09, 2015 after Austin Group Received complaints)

3. ARI PADMAJA
Position: Owner (Director) of SM Group Publisher
Fathers Name: Ari Krishna Rao
Date of Birth: Sep 10, 1966 (49 years old)
Gender: Female
Unique Director Identification Number from Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), India (DIN): 06920654
Emails used by Ari Padmaja for website and company registration: padmaja.austin@gmail.com
Companies: SM Medical Technologies Private Limited (or SM Online Publishers)
Facebook page: No social media profiles found

4. VARA PRASAD
Position: Employee at Hyderabad, India working for Austin Group Publishers.
Emails used by Vara Prasad for website and company registration: varaprasad.austin@gmail.com
Google+ Page: https://plus.google.com/+VaraPrasaddivili/about
(Vara modified his Google+ page on August 09, 2015 after Austin Group Received complaints. This indicates his direct involvement)

Sources:
AUSTIN PUBLISHERS DIRECTORS: https://www.zaubacorp.com/company-directors/AUSTIN-PUBLISHERS-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U22130TG2014PTC092925

SM GROUP JOURNALS DIRECTORS: https://www.zaubacorp.com/company-directors/SM-MEDICAL-TECHNOLOGIES-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U93000TG2014PTC095024

Directors’ information can be found by searching the specific DIN numbers at Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), India website:
http://www.mca.gov.in/DCAPortalWeb/dca/MyMCALogin.do?method=setDefaultProperty&mode=50

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

August 26, 2015, 1:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by Melissa Terras

≪ Previous: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Sandy

I’m afraid that I don’t find the data suggestive, let alone convincing. There is no control group. The author claims that there is coal fly ash in the rainwater on the basis of an element composition which is “similar” to coal fly ash. But similar compared to what? Maybe the similarity is just driven by the fact that the same elements occur in products of combustion from organic materials – whether that be coal ash, or car exhausts, industrial chimneys etc etc.

Out of context, the similarity – based purely on eyeballing the bar-charts – is completely meaningless.

If it could be shown that the rainwater is *more* similar to coal fly ash than to any other substance that could be present (control), that would be suggestive.

↧

Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by Melissa Terras

August 26, 2015, 2:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by LeiaSunesson

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

Hi! interesting discussion. Just a few points of fact – I was asked to review a paper, not an editorial discussion (it may have been published as such, but I was asked to review a paper). Secondly, I didn’t sit on this review for 7 months – I was sent it in October 2014, and submitted it mid November 2014, so I took less than a month to review it. That is hardly malicious, is it? They then took months to rewrite it, and sent it to me in March 2015, upon which I turned it around within a week. So its not me that has caused delays. The first version of the paper (which I have a copy of, should you like to see it) was of such poor quality that it was unpublishable. Tell me, is it malicious of reviewers to highlight when papers don’t meet very basic academic standards? (ie, sweeping statements that have no citations, no examples, ignoring most of the work in the field, lacking references to key works in the field that have addressed this topic before, etc). The fact I am being called malicious for carrying out a refereeing task in good time, in good faith, and giving my honest opinion, then having no control over where my academic name is published, just shows how broken the Frontiers model of publishing is.

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by LeiaSunesson

August 26, 2015, 3:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by LeiaSunesson

≪ Previous: Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by Melissa Terras

If I were an editor or reviewer I’d also ask to include some controls as you mentioned. We both agree the paper shouldn’t be published in the present format altho there might be ways for potential improvement. This paper definitely showcases bad science but since there are methods as you suggested to prove or falsify the hypothesis I don’t think it is strictly per definition pseudo-science (example: astrology). I guess the underlying assumption is most people would perhaps not expect that rainwater or HEPA-filtered air contain detectable amounts of inorganic components as materials from a lab (did you?). It somehow reminds me of the sting operation by Science against OA where they submitted around a fake paper with 60% acceptance rate, the result sounded more astonishing to people hoping for near-0% acceptance. In retrospect I think Science should’ve submitted the same paper to some subscription based journals as a control.

↧

Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by LeiaSunesson

August 26, 2015, 4:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Some Strange Goings On at Cureus by Dom

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by LeiaSunesson

Hello Dr. Terras! It was indeed an interesting discussion thread in here and your arrival certainly put the cherry on top! Having read your original blogpost I’m under the impression that both commentators Max and Nils got way over their heads. I think neither of them thoroughly read through your story and calling your review “malicious” is totally out of place.

How was the manuscript at the 2nd review? Was it much improved or still bad enough for a 3rd round of review? I’m also curious as whether Dr. Frederic Kaplan did personally oversee the review of his own paper. Nils accused Dr. Kaplan of meddling in the review process by personally selecting you to review the specific paper and overseeing the publishing process himself. Altho from your version of story it sounded like you dealt mostly with the editorial team while Dr. Kaplan didn’t do much aside from authoring the paper and asking to become a general reviewer for the Frontiers early on. I feel a bit confused.

↧

Comment on Some Strange Goings On at Cureus by Dom

August 26, 2015, 5:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Oswald H

≪ Previous: Comment on Frontiers Launches OA Library Science Journal by LeiaSunesson

While possible, 48 hours for a review is highly unusual – I say this from the viewpoint of being an academic editor as well as a reviewer of papers. Many a review will require extra digging, some help (information) from others, sometimes for literature to be sourced (few establishments can afford the breadth of journal subscriptions required for reviewing), and some simple reflection on the final review.

The suggestion that taking longer than 48 hours is laziness (or lack of application) seems to make light of the overly full diaries of most academics, who are after all doing this for free.

As to anonymity, it is sadly the case that there are large figures in many fields that no-one wishes to cross and that these individuals often have a big influence in grant funding. As such they hold the jobs of pure academics in their hands. Of course clinicians, such as yourself, can still pay the mortgage with earnings from the clinic, but the rest of us lack that second income stream, so we need that anonymity.

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Oswald H

August 26, 2015, 12:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

≪ Previous: Comment on Some Strange Goings On at Cureus by Dom

You don’t have to be an environmental scientist to rightly call “chemtrails” a hoax and conspiracy theory.

Oh, and Herndon DID fake data:

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

August 26, 2015, 1:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by wkdawson

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Oswald H

Indeed. The only question remaining is why isn’t this paper retracted yet?

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by wkdawson

August 26, 2015, 1:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

Using this same “measuring” scheme, I entered “nature.com pseudoscience” and received 797,000 hits. The first hits were more damning than MDPI too. Therefore, I do not think your measuring scheme is useful.

Nevertheless, the whole notion of disposing of waste this way seems impractical as well as implausible. If “_they_” are going to all this trouble, why not pack it in old boxcars and dump it in the ocean? That seems easier to hide and less expensive. Presently, I would go with Neuroscience’ view: a more probable source of inorganic particles is volcanic ash. The article should have been very thorough about controls. Further doubts were raised in Jay Reynold’s post.

I cannot understand why an editor would pass a work like this without at least demanding a major clean up. The only charitable thing I can find to say at this time is “anyone can be fooled”.

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

August 26, 2015, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by wkdawson

a journal called Current Science (indexed in SCIE, Scopus).

That comes up in the Wikipedia Talk discussion on whether Dr Herndon deserves his own Whackyweedia entry. The discussion is dominated by Herndon’s own claims that no-one has refuted his claims (not to his satisfaction, anyway), therefore they remain valid.
Anyway, the “Current Science” paper is cited… after all, it is published by a Bangalore university which describes itself as “India’s finest institution in its field”, how much more prestigious could the journal be?

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

August 26, 2015, 2:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Jay Reynolds

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

I see from Jay’s link that Herndon is now issuing bumptious, censorious threats of litigation against people who criticise his work:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-articles-in-current-science-india-and-ijerph.t6456/page-2#post-162083

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Jay Reynolds

August 26, 2015, 6:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Njoku Ede

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by herr doktor bimler

It probably hasn’t because no one has brought it to attention yet, only being published a little more than two weeks ago. I happen to be in a position to do something about that. I am making a trip tomorrow on unrelated business which will pass through Jackson, Mississippi, where the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Dr. Paul B. Tchounwou is Associate Dean of Jackson State University. I will try to speak with him about it.

I’m open to suggestions on the best way to do that, though it is very short notice.

↧

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Njoku Ede

August 27, 2015, 2:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Jay Reynolds

Dear jeffrey,
Please could you help me find out if the Journal of Disease and Global Health is one of the predatory journal. It is published by the International Knowledge Press (IKP). It is an OA journal and they do not charge processing fee.
Thanks
Njoku

↧

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

August 27, 2015, 3:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall

≪ Previous: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Njoku Ede

I think International Knowledge Press is a subscription publisher, so that’s why they don’t charge a fee. I disagree with your statement that it is an OA journal. If you try to access one of the articles, you see this: “Purchase PDF – $30.00.”
However, very few if any libraries subscribe to their journals. So, if you publish your work there, it is unlikely that anyone will ever read it. I find IKP to be a very low quality publisher.

↧

Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall

August 27, 2015, 4:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by O's digest - Natureue - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

≪ Previous: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall

The <em>Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research</em> is published by the Iranian firm called World Science and Research Publishing. I have this publisher included on my list <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The <em>World Journal of Biology and Medical Sciences</em> is published by the fake "Society for Advancement of Sciences," which is also included on my list. I recommend you avoid all these journals and publishers.

↧

Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by O's digest - Natureue - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

August 27, 2015, 4:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on The OMICS Publishing Group’s Empire is Expanding by Rejina

≪ Previous: Comment on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015 by Jeffrey Beall

[…] astrofisica ecc. ecc. con testi su arXiv che erano rimasti ignorati. Questa volta se n'è accorto Jeffrey Beall, il successo presso i fratelli Marcianò e altri invasati non si farà […]

↧

Comment on The OMICS Publishing Group’s Empire is Expanding by Rejina

August 27, 2015, 1:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Piya

≪ Previous: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by O's digest - Natureue - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

I’m not a native speaker. Yet, I have never used any service to edit/proofread my articles for a fee. Most serious journals will correct your spelling and grammar free of charge.

↧

Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Piya

August 27, 2015, 6:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open Access Journal Provides One-Day Peer Review by Little_Chaos

≪ Previous: Comment on The OMICS Publishing Group’s Empire is Expanding by Rejina

I found out your site by reading an article on the ‘Australian’ regarding bogus journals. This is really a good work.

↧

Comment on Open Access Journal Provides One-Day Peer Review by Little_Chaos

August 27, 2015, 7:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI by Kenji

≪ Previous: Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Piya

First, I love that one of their site tabs is labeled: ‘Instructtion to Author.’ If you click on the tab, they do spell ‘instruction’ correctly on the actual page, but it’s definitely a turnoff.

Second, I decided to take a quick look at the types of articles they published. I randomly chose vol. 5, issue 15 of 2015 to examine. One article in particular caught my eye: “Intercropping of Ayurvedic herbs in the management of diabetes- a lifestyle disease.” I opened the PDF, googled a few of its phrases, and found that some of their definitions appeared to overlap with those from other sources. Are these considered common definitions in the field (such that they would not need to be cited) or was this possibly a copy and paste job? (I did only investigate one paper, so perhaps the others are less questionable?)

Example 1:

Article version-

“Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs either when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone that regulates blood sugar. Hyperglycemia, or raised blood sugar, is a common effect of uncontrolled diabetes and leads to serious damage to many of the body’s systems, especially the nerves and blood vessels.”

World Health Organization’s fact sheet-
(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/)

“Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs either when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone that regulates blood sugar. Hyperglycaemia, or raised blood sugar, is a common effect of uncontrolled diabetes and over time leads to serious damage to many of the body’s systems, especially the nerves and blood vessels.”

Example 2:

Article version-

“Lifestyle diseases (also sometimes called diseases of longevity or diseases of civilization interchangeably) are diseases that appear to increase in frequency as countries become more industrialized and people live longer. They include Alzheimer’s disease, Arthritis, Atherosclerosis, Asthma, some kinds of Cancer, Chronic liver disease or Cirrhosis, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 2 diabetes, Heart disease, Metabolic syndrome, Chronic renal failure, Osteoporosis, Stroke, Depression and Obesity.”

“Diet and lifestyle are major factors thought to influence susceptibility to many diseases. Drug abuse, tobacco smoking, and alcohol drinking, as well as a lack of exercise may also increase the risk of developing certain diseases, especially later in life.”

Wikipedia-
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease)

“Lifestyle diseases (also sometimes called diseases of longevity or diseases of civilization interchangeably) are diseases that appear to increase in frequency as countries become more industrialized and people live longer. They can include Alzheimer’s disease, Arthritis, atherosclerosis, asthma,cancer, chronic liver disease or cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, chronic renal failure, osteoporosis, stroke, depression and obesity.”

↧