- RSS Channel Showcase 3848976
- RSS Channel Showcase 3681222
- RSS Channel Showcase 5388057
- RSS Channel Showcase 8729575
Articles on this Page
- 10/10/16--03:31: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/10/16--03:33: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/10/16--03:58: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/10/16--06:00: _Comment on Scam Pub...
- 10/10/16--07:34: _Comment on Misleadi...
- 10/10/16--07:34: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/10/16--07:38: _Comment on OA Publi...
- 10/10/16--09:41: _Comment on Strange ...
- 10/10/16--10:51: _Comment on Beall’s ...
- 10/10/16--12:09: _Comment on Two More...
- 10/10/16--12:56: _Comment on Two More...
- 10/10/16--17:53: _Comment on A True P...
- 10/10/16--19:36: _Comment on Combinin...
- 10/10/16--19:43: _Comment on Amateuri...
- 10/11/16--00:58: _Comment on Everythi...
- 10/11/16--04:52: _Comment on About Th...
- 10/11/16--05:52: _Comment on Everythi...
- 10/11/16--09:16: _Comment on Allied A...
- 10/11/16--09:31: _Comment on Everythi...
- 10/12/16--08:27: _Comment on Two More...
- 10/10/16--12:09: Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by CSC
- 10/10/16--12:56: Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by Bernard G
- 10/10/16--17:53: Comment on A True Predator: Austin Publishing Group by Narima
- 10/12/16--08:27: Comment on Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers” by KMseky
Then why do scientists/authors, still publishing in allied?
Jeffrey, I think you're mixing up SCIE and ESCI here. The former is the Science Citation Index Expanded (and I don't think that one contains any predatory journals), the latter is the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which contains a lot of crap. I don't understand why TR started that one...
Thanks, this is helpful!
[…] One such online publisher, the OMICS Group, is being sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for deceptive practices that include spam emails to solicit articles that are not peer reviewed. This same outfit recently acquired two Canadian medical journal publishers. […]
[…] In what has become known as Beall’s List of predatory publishers, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Aurora Library, meticulously conducted background checks on academic journals and publishers and compiled a list of journals with questionable backgrounds that academics must avoid at all cost. Beall identified three (3) categories of these journals—predatory publishers, predatory standalone journals, and hijacked journals—and their misleading metric companies. For predatory journals, Beall identified the “single title” journals and the “fleet journals” and provided the criteria for the determination of these journals (Please follow the link to these publishers: https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf). By way of example, the International Institute of Science, Technology and Research (IISTE) is an example of a fleet publisher, with multi-title journal names. International Center for Business Research fits the criteria for a “single title” journal. The criteria for determining predatory standalone journals are also derived from the criteria for the predatory publishers. For the hijacked journals, just as the name implies, the crooks will create a counterfeit of a legitimate scholarly journal and then go on to solicit for manuscripts. In tandem with this development, misleading metrics companies have also emerged, purporting to provide valid scholarly metrics to measure the impact of these journals and articles (Please follow the link to these companies here https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/). […]
[…] https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/ […]
[…] https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/04/09/oa-publisher-to-peer-reviewer-never-mind/ […]
[…] The publisher Public Science Framework was flagged by Jeffrey Beall:https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/15/strange-new-oa-publisher-launches-with-42-journals/ The following might indicate self-plagiarism by the sole author Janecka: Figures 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, […]
Thanks so much Prof
I am a new image processing researcher from Europe. So, It is not clear for me about duplication and salami.
My question is: Can we publish our conference paper in journal? If yes, it is like duplication? Cause the duplication uses same methods, same experiments, same structure.
Please advise it.
Could you analyse the papers?
Is it possible to publish in chapter book, then publish in non-ISI journal and finally published in ISI with impact factor as you can see below:
Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems
Volume 4251 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp 639-646
Human Arm-Motion Classification Using Qualitative Normalised Templates (Published in 2006)
This paper proposes an approach to classify human arm motion using qualitative normalized templates. The proposed method consists of construction of human arm model, qualitative representation of prior knowledge of human arm motion and a search algorithm. First, convention robotic model is employed to build up a generic vision model for a human arm; Secondly, qualitative robotic model in  is used to construct qualitative normalised templates; Finally a search algorithm is provided to match the vision model with the templates in image frames. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the proposed method is effective for the classification of human-arm motion. Future work will focus on extending the proposed method to the classification of a full human-body motion.
J Intell Robot Syst (2007) 48:79–95 DOI 10.1007/s10846-006-9100-2
Recognition of Human Motion From Qualitative Normalised Templates (2007)
Abstract This paper proposes a Qualitative Normalised Templates (QNTs) framework for solving the human motion classification problem. In contrast to other human motion classification methods which usually include a human model, prior knowledge on human motion and a matching algorithm, we replace the matching
algorithm (e.g. template matching) with the proposed QNTs. The human motion is modelled by the time-varying joint angles and link lengths of an articulated human model. The ability tomanage the trade-offs between model complexity and computational
cost plays a crucial role in the performance of human motion classification. The QNTs is developed to categorise complex human motion into sets of fuzzy qualitative angles and positions in quantity space. Classification of the human motion is done by
comparing the QNTs to the parameters learned from numerical motion tracking. Experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of our proposed method when classifying simple human motions, e.g. running and walking.
Key words human motion classification • pattern recognition
International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems
Volume 11 Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 207-217, IOS Press Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands
Adapting robot kinematics for human-arm motion recognition (2007)
This paper presents a novel method to the analysis of human-arm motion, in particular improving the efficiency of conventional motion recognition algorithms. Contrary to the prior art methods, this research develops a framework for human-arm motion recognition where qualitative normalised templates (QNTs) is proposed to replace the conventional approaches. First of all, the conventional robotic model has been employed to build a generic vision model for a human-arm, that is we utilise the robot kinematics to construct a stick model. Secondly, the qualitative robotic model is adopted to learn and construct the QNTs where human-arm motion is termed as, whose execution is consistent and could be easily characterised by a definite space-time trajectory in configuration space. Finally, classification of the human-arm motion is achieved by comparing the QNTs to the parameters learnt with particle filter based motion tracking algorithm. Experimental evaluation has demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method in human-arm motion classification, and our future work is focused on extending the proposed method to recognise complex human motion, e.g. walking and running.
This is just example of duplication and your works are not salami paper.
Could you explain these papers?
I came across the paper deeply and found that these two papers are published in 2014 and the same paper published in 2016. Note that: in 2016, the same paper recycled.
How do you want to clarify it? I am ready to explain the technical aspects of these papers. I have analysed it.
If you doubt about duplication, I kindly invite those researchers who are experts in AI field.
An efficient semi-supervised feed forward neural network clustering
Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem et al ( Sisters)
Articial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing / FirstView Article / December 2014, pp 1 - 15
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060414000675, Published online: 02 December 2014
We developed an efficient semisupervised feedforward neural network clustering model with one epoch training and data
dimensionality reduction ability to solve the problems of low training speed, accuracy, and high memory complexity of
clustering. During training, a codebook of nonrandom weights is learned through input data directly. A standard weight
vector is extracted from the codebook, and the exclusive threshold of each input instance is calculated based on the standard weight vector. The input instances are clustered based on their exclusive thresholds. The model assigns a class label to each input instance through the training set. The class label of each unlabeled input instance is predicted by considering a linear activation function and the exclusive threshold. Finally, the number of clusters and the density of each cluster are updated.
The accuracy of the proposed model was measured through the number of clusters and the quantity of correctly classified
nodes, which was 99.85%, 100%, and 99.91% of the Breast Cancer, Iris, and Spam data sets from the University of California at Irvine Machine Learning Repository, respectively, and the superior F measure results between 98.29% and 100%
accuracies for the breast cancer data set from the University of Malaya Medical Center to predict the survival time.
Keywords: Artificial Neural Network; Feedforward Neural Network; Nonrandom Weight; Semiclustering; Supervised
and Unsupervised Learning.
A dynamic semisupervised feedforward neural
Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem et al ( Sisters)
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, page 1 of 25, 2016.
# Cambridge University Press 2016 0890-0604/16
An efficient single-layer dynamic semisupervised feedforward neural network clustering method with one epoch training,
data dimensionality reduction, and controlling noise data abilities is discussed to overcome the problems of high training
time, low accuracy, and high memory complexity of clustering. Dynamically after the entrance of each new online input
datum, the code book of nonrandom weights and other important information about online data as essentially important
information are updated and stored in the memory. Consequently, the exclusive threshold of the data is calculated based on the essentially important information, and the data is clustered. Then, the network of clusters is updated. After learning, the model assigns a class label to the unlabeled data by considering a linear activation function and the exclusive threshold. Finally, the number of clusters and density of each cluster are updated. The accuracy of the proposed model is measured through the number of clusters, the quantity of correctly classified nodes, and F-measure. Briefly, in order to predict the survival time, the F-measure is 100% of the Iris, Musk2, Arcene, and Yeast data sets and 99.96% of the Spambase data set from the University of California at Irvine Machine Learning Repository; and the superior F-measure results in between 98.14% and 100% accuracies for the breast cancer data set from the University of Malaya Medical Center.We show that the proposed method is applicable in different areas, such as the prediction of the hydrate formation temperature with high accuracy.
From formation of Austin Group in 2014 to now, group published more than 4400 papers in their 200 journals. They charge thousands of dollars in processing fee. considering average APC $1500, it comes to $1500 * 4400 = $6.6 MILLION (Staggering amount in indian currency!!). Austin Group owners Mahendra Reddy Chirra and Shiva Pravathi Chirra must be billionaires in indian terms.
They may have paid $0 taxes in united states because they ask authors to make payments to their bank in india. Fraud and money laundering, right!!! They may owe hundred of thousands dollars to united states government in taxes. Be careful and think twice before submitting paper to Austin Group: http://www.austinpublishinggroup.com/
Summary of number of papers published in their 200 journals in last 2 years:
Austin Journal of Allergy 22
Austin Journal of Analytical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry 71
Austin Journal of Anatomy 54
Austin Aging Research 0
Annals of Agricultural & Crop Sciences 2
Austin Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia 44
Austin Journal of Accounting, Audit and Finance Management 4
Austin Journal of Aquaculture and Marine Biology 4
Austin Journal of Autism & Related Disabilities 31
Austin Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease 29
Austin Anesthesiology 0
Austin Addiction Sciences 5
Austin Arthritis 12
Austin Andrology 8
Austin Anaplastology 1
Austin Journal of Biomedical Engineering 35
Austin Journal of Bioorganic & Organic Chemistry 4
Austin Journal of Biosensors & Bioelectronics 21
Austin Journal of Biotechnology & Bioengineering 65
American Journal of Bioterrorism, Biosecurity and Biodefense 5
Journal of Bacteriology and Mycology 34
Austin Biomarkers & Diagnosis 25
Austin Biometrics and Biostatistics 30
Journal of Blood Disorders 39
Austin Biochemistry 1
Austin Biology 10
Austin Biomolecules: Open Access 3
Austin Journal of Cancer and Clinical Research 69
Austin Journal of Cardiovascular Disease and Atherosclerosis 26
Austin Journal of Cerebrovascular Disease & Stroke 47
Austin Chemical Engineering 39
Austin Journal of Clinical Cardiology 48
Austin Journal of Clinical Case Reports 98
Austin Journal of Clinical Immunology 30
Austin Journal of Clinical Medicine 25
Austin Journal of Clinical Neurology 93
Austin Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 70
Austin Journal of Clinical Pathology 40
Austin Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research 1
Austin Journal of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 14
Austin Cell Science 0
Austin Chromatography 43
Journal of Cardiovascular Disorders 29
Chronic Diseases - International 23
Austin - Critical Care Journal 19
Austin Critical Care Case Reports 0
Austin Cardio & Cardiovascular Case Reports 10
Austin Cell Biology 4
Annals of Carcinogenesis 4
Austin Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 4
Journal of Community Medicine & Health care 2
Austin Cardiology 1
Austin Journal of Dentistry 46
Austin Journal of Dermatology 58
Journal of Dental Applications 78
Austin Journal of Drug Abuse and Addiction 9
Annals of Depression and Anxiety 81
Journal of Disease Markers 36
Journal of Drug Discovery, Development and Delivery 24
Journal of Dentistry & Oral Disorders 37
Austin Dental Sciences 6
Austin Diabetes Research 5
Austin Digestive System 0
Austin Journal of Earth Science 18
Austin Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine 45
Austin Journal of Endocrinology and Diabetes 51
Austin Journal of Environmental Toxicology 14
Journal of Endocrine Disorders 23
Austin Endocrinology & Diabetes Case Reports 3
Austin Emergency Medicine 44
Austin Environmental Sciences 10
Austin Journal of Forensic Science and Criminology 51
Journal of Family Medicine 85
Foot & Ankle: Studies 0
Austin Food Sciences 23
Austin Journal of Gastroenterology 67
Austin Journal of Genetics and Genomic Research 20
Austin Gynecology Case Reports 5
Gerontology & Geriatrics: Research 21
Gastrointestinal Cancer: Research & Therapy 9
Journal of Gastroenterology, Liver & Pancreatic Diseases 3
Austin Journal of HIV/AIDS Research 29
Austin Journal of Hydrology 21
Annals of Hematology & Oncology 113
Journal of Hepatitis Research 34
Austin Hypertension 6
Austin Head & Neck Oncology 0
Austin Hepatology 3
Austin Hematology 1
Austin Journal of Infectious Diseases 27
Austin Journal of Invitro Fertilization 29
Journal of Immune Research 25
Austin Journal of Irrigation 3
Austin Internal Medicine 12
Austin Immunology 8
Austin Journal of Lung Cancer Research 8
Austin Leukemia 1
Austin Liver 2
Annals of Materials Science & Engineering 27
Austin Mathematics 0
Austin Journal of Medical Oncology 27
Austin Journal of Microbiology 11
Austin Journal of Molecular and Cellular Biology 8
Austin Journal of Multiple Sclerosis & Neuroimmunology 28
Journal of Molecular Biology and Molecular Imaging 22
Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders 36
Austin Clinical Microbiology 6
Annals of Mutagenesis 0
Austin Metabolomics 0
Austin Material Sciences 0
Austin Medical Sciences 12
Austin Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology 44
Austin Journal of Nephrology and Hypertension 59
Austin Neurosurgery: Open Access 52
Austin Journal of Neurological Disorders & Epilepsy 24
Austin Neurology & Neurosciences 0
Austin Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Cognitive Science 2
Austin Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy 19
Austin Journal of Nutrition & Metabolism 39
Austin Journal of Nutrition and Food sciences 80
Austin Journal of Nursing & Health Care 29
Annals of Nursing Research & Practice 7
Annals of Nutritional Disorders & Therapy 29
International Journal of Nutritional Sciences 9
Austin Neurology 5
Austin Journal of Obesity & Metabolic Syndromes 4
Austin Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 59
Austin Journal of Orthopedics & Rheumatology 40
Austin Orthopedics 2
Austin Journal of Otolaryngology 81
Austin Oncology Case Reports 4
Austin Oncology 11
Annals of Obesity & Disorders 12
Austin Ophthalmology 2
Journal of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences 8
Austin Occupational Medicine 2
Austin Pediatrics 41
Austin Pancreatic Disorders 0
Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics 86
Austin Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics 3
Austin Journal of Plant Biology 14
Journal of Plant Chemistry and Ecophysiology 10
Austin Proteomics 9
Austin Journal of Proteins 0
Austin Journal of Proteomics, Bioinformatics & Genomics 17
Austin Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 55
Austin Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology 49
Austin Journal of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine 45
Austin Journal of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 15
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation - International 98
Austin Physical Medicine 0
Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology 7
Austin Pathology 3
Austin Public Health 5
Journal of Pathology & Microbiology 8
Journal of Pediatrics & Child Health Care 8
Austin Palliative Care 10
Austin Pediatric Oncology 3
Austin Psychiatry 2
Journal of Psychiatry & Mental Disorders 0
Austin Pain & Relief 3
Austin Journal of Radiology 56
Austin Journal of Radiation Oncology and Cancer 21
Austin Journal of Reproductive Medicine & Infertility 41
Austin Journal of Robotics & Automation 9
Austin Renal Disorders 4
Austin Rheumatology 0
Austin Journal of Sleep Disorders 25
Austin Statistics 4
Journal of Stem Cell Research and Transplantation 23
Austin Journal of Surgery 88
Annals of Surgery and Perioperative Care 4
Austin Spine 0
Sarcoma Research - International 33
Journal of Schizophrenia Research 26
Journal of Stem Cells Research, Reviews & Reports 22
Austin Surgery Case Reports 10
Austin Sports Medicine 8
Austin Surgical Oncology 3
Austin Journal of Trauma and Treatment 11
Austin Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene 9
Austin Therapeutics 28
Annals of Thyroid Research 16
Annals of Translational Medicine & Epidemiology 28
Austin Tuberculosis: Research & Treatment 3
Austin Tissue Engineering 0
Austin Transplantation Sciences 2
Advance Research in Textile Engineering 2
Austin Journal of Urology 48
Austin Journal of Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 10
Austin Journal of Vascular Medicine 19
Austin Journal of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry 22
Austin Virology and Retrovirology 22
Austin Journal of Women’s Health 21
Annals of Yoga and Physical Therapy 10
Share your experience to educate your colleagues.
Thank you for the advice.
Really appreciate it.
There's no way a new publisher could occupy a building that big. A building of that size can house hundreds of employees. A legitimate new publisher just starting out might have ~10.
Sometimes I feel that many so-called 'scientists' are too naive when they associate quality to journal X or Y.
I'm afraid that this kind of speech that spoils the scientific fields and makes pleasure to the praised journals to continue spoiling the field.
Can you tell why one should recruit someone who has on his CV a journal X more than journal Y if the ideas published in the 'top" journal X has nothing useful compared with those in non-top journal Y?
The academic environment is sick by such distorted vision and biased judgment.
Nature and Science have now many open access sister journals whose the goal is to win millions $ per year but not for their "high quality". The problem is that the number of naive scientists who believe and repeat this misleading claim is crazily great!
The "quality" has nothing to do with journal X or Y.
Publishing a paper in a so-called "top journal" won't give it more intrinsic value than publishing in a personal web page. Sometimes, we can find valuable information or interesting ideas in this blog (of Jeffrey Beall) much more than in Science or Nature...
By the way, can you define what 'quality' does mean? How do you judge that a paper is of a higher quality than another? Is there any unbiased scale or ladder for this?
The system is already deeply gamed and biased. It is not because some journals such as Nature or Science describe themselves as top journals that we should believe it.
Most if not all authors submit to Nature or Science not because they wish to have 'tough peer review reports" but because of the artificial and biased advantages they will have. The goal of authors is to have their papers published as easily as possible but not to have "quality" and reluctant peer review. It is not the journal that offer the peer review but the peers that we can find them in any field, any journal.
If you submit a good idea to Nature and Science but you get a peer review report that rejects it, what did you benefit from their 'quality' peer review?
Another example: if you have product X (say PC or smartphone) that you sell it to buyer 1 or buyer 2, will your smartphone have more intrinsic value or quality if it was bought by buyer 1 rather than buyer 2, or inversely?
The same principle for articles (products) and journals (buyers); it is not the buyer who give quality to your product but your product itself (i.e. your ideas, analysis, argument, judgement, etc. but not the journal).
Many scientists and researchers need a lot of training on the objectivity of judgement but not only to work as robots and to repeat what they read without critical eyes that journal X or Y is of high quality!
I just got my second email in as many weeks, this time saying:
"My last email must have reached you at a bad time so I am following up. If you are not the right person to talk to about this please let me know or feel free to forward this email."
First email was word for word the same as above.
And thanks for keeping your energy focussed on this dreadful activity
"The “quality” has nothing to do with journal X or Y."
In theory (note, in theory), if a particular journal is more selective in the papers it publishes and uses superior editors and reviewers to do so, then the research it publishes will be of higher quality. It's not that the journal conveys quality in and of itself, but that it selects for quality. Obviously this does not always work as intended, but anyone evaluating a piece of research should of course actually read it and assess its apparent quality themselves. The journal in which it is published is simply a preliminary indicator (i.e. if it's in one of the "top" journals it's worth at least having a look at, if it's in one of those listed by Jeffrey it probably isn't), in the same way that the abstract, the professionalism with which it's laid out etc. are preliminary indicators.
"If you submit a good idea to Nature and Science but you get a peer review report that rejects it, what did you benefit from their ‘quality’ peer review?"
The realization that you missed an important error in your work, which you can now go back and correct? Experience in how to present research to an acceptable standard? You seem to be falling into (or blithely accepting other people falling into) the trap that creates all these predatory journals, namely the assumption that the end-goal and/or measuring standard of research is publishing papers.
I agree that Allied Academies is a questionable publisher, to say the least. However, with regard to “Coercive membership”, I don’t think this is uncommon for even legitimate professional associations. For example, the Canadian Journal of Economics requires that at least one author be a member of the Canadian Economic Association when submitting a paper: http://economics.ca/cje/en/submissionfee.php I have also seen associations give a submission fee discount for members equal to the cost of joining, which amounts to the same thing (you might as well join and get the journal).
If reviewers reject a paper submitted to Nature or Science, I would say that it depends
If there was something seriously wrong that you somehow missed, you would probably prefer that it not be published and then learn for yourself this mistake.
If it was inadequately argued (but it is right), well, if it is good peer review, it will still help you. After all, if these reviewers had issues with your explanation, then obviously readers will too. The reviewer report is only a helpful indicator of how other people will receive the paper. Then you can think over the comments and try to rewrite the paper in a way that addresses those opinions.
Now, I am very well aware that some reviewers and editors could be politicians, and if that is your lot, they will treat you badly and sometimes even steal you work. I don't know what proportion of the times that actually happens with Nature or Science, but certainly in Science it does happen and it is not impossible that it does happen.
If you mean this latter point, then yes, I agree that the system is far from fair and it can even be far worse than that.
I mentioned Rutherford. It It is true that real innovation can be very difficult to recognize and I suspect they miss it all the time. They are surprisingly risk averse, so the obscure journals are more likely to publish real innovation than these top journals.
Nevertheless, they do receive submissions from people all over the world, many of whom are genuinely good. Maybe you yourself for example. Would you say that all people who submit there are simply doing so to game the system? If you felt that you had a very news worthy idea that should be broadcast to the world, would you still chose an obscure journal?
I agree with you that the product (the work the author does) is what is most important, and I think administrators should evaluate a person's work based upon what they have really done, not where it was published.
It seems that the Alan C ( a frienf of sameem) is not expert in solar energy and computational intelligence approaches, so she or he does not touch solar device. You may read those papers deeply and dicuss about technical aspects. As I can see, those 20 solar papers are from different regoins. The point is that we can not judge about papers by finding the keywords. Instead of finding a keyword, you can discuss with top professor in Energy in UM.