White paper regarding fight against Predatory Publication practices: published by Sciencedomain International

Some open-access publishers publish papers without peer review to make easy money. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, provided publication charge is paid. These publishers even advertise in their website and “calls for paper” that they will publish the paper within 1-4 days of submission. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such predatory journals. But at the later stage, his methodology to identify predatory journals was questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall’s evaluation was biased and erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: http://bit.ly/wikipedia-Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

‘Sciencedomain International’ (SDI) fights against predatory publication practices for many years. ‘Sciencedomain International’ is also a victim of the predatory publication model. Many times ‘Sciencedomain International’ was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as Sciencedomain also follows open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image of ‘Sciencedomain International’ in many ways.

Therefore Sciencedomain International took some proactive steps to fight against the predatory publication problem starting from 2011. Some distinguished operating principles of ‘Sciencedomain International’ are discussed below and the backgrounds of these steps are also discussed.

Problem 1: Predatory publishers don’t do peer review.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

1.1 OPEN Peer review:

‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don’t do peer review to publish any paper. As ‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing (i.e. absence of peer-review and quality control) cannot be applied against ‘Sciencedomain International’. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don’t follow the predatory publication model.

Some examples:

  1. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
  2. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
  3. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.2 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal

Now it is obvious that all publishers will highlight its brighter sides. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article.  Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Springer, BMC, MDPI, Hindawi, etc.

Problem 2: Predatory publishers don’t pay any attention to complaints after publication

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 2.1 POST-publication peer review:

The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system.  SDI journal Websites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote “Post-publication peer review”. Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review.  As a result of this “Post-publication peer review”, if authors agree and/or journal Editors agree (and/or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and Retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).

2.2 Established Retraction Policy:

No journal in the world has a hundred percent perfect peer review policy. It is not expected from the publisher that it should work like fraud detection agency or fake paper detection agency. No publisher has that capacity or enough resource for such activities. An academic publisher is expected to arrange honest peer review, editorial screening, editing, formatting, publication, DOI registration, digital preservation of papers, indexing of published papers, etc. An academic publisher depends on the integrity of the author for the submitted paper and expertise of reviewers and editors during the peer review process. At any stage, an academic publisher should never influence the publication decision by over-ruling the academic independence of the reviewers and editors. Therefore, a scholarly publisher is never expected to publish only a hundred percent perfect papers, as it depends on the author-reviewer-editor system. But an academic publisher is always expected to work promptly whenever a fraud/wrongdoing is reported. If an academic publisher sits idle when an irreparable wrongdoing is reported then the publisher is just supporting the wrongdoing of the author. Such careless idle steps of the publisher rather encourage other dishonest authors to harbour their papers with that publisher. Predatory publishers often sit idly by publishing fake papers and invite other dishonest authors to publish their papers by providing a safe shelter in exchange for publication charges. It is expected that a true academic publisher should officially retract wrong papers/fake papers immediately whenever reported. Retraction is a negative point for any publisher, but a true academic publisher should never be afraid to retract such papers with official retraction notice. Sciencedomain International has a very strong and official correction/retraction policy (see here: http://bit.ly/retraction-policy-sdi). Sciencedomain International is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, fake paper, etc. Whenever such a serious problem is reported, Sciencedomain International takes immediate action and officially retract the paper.

Problem 3: Predatory publishers use the name of the reputed scientists without consent and sometimes they don’t do quality control during the recruitment of editors.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

3.1 Transparent Editorial Board:

All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved by SDI. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world, but we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.2 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals

Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation.  We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors.  Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

Problem 4: Predatory publishers claim false indexing status, show false impact factor, highlight Thomson Reuters Researcher ID as proof of indexing in ISI, etc.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

4.1 Transparent Indexing information: A dedicated indexing team of Sciencedomain International is working to include all of our journals in reputed indexing services or journal evaluation services or catalogue or reference citations, etc. Sciencedomain International also advises that authors should cross-check the authenticity of claims of indexing before submitting their manuscripts to any publisher (including SDI). SDI strongly encourages authors to take ‘informed decision’ before submission of any manuscript. In order to help the authors to take ‘informed decision’, SDI is providing web-links/proofs beside most of the claims of indexing or journal evaluation services. In addition, authors should visit the official site of the indexing organization or journal evaluation services before submitting any manuscript. We have never applied to have a false impact factor (like global impact factor, etc) for our journals and we never display false impact factor of journals to cheat the authors. We never advertised Thomson Reuters Research ID (https://clarivate.com/products/researcherid/) as proof of our ISI indexing. We hope the scholarly community will appreciate our efforts to maintain integrity and transparency. Please see our steps here: http://bit.ly/indexing-sdi1

 Problem 5: Predatory publishers don’t provide clear information regarding publication charges. They never provide information related to publication charge before or just after submission. They start demanding money after the publication.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 5.1 Transparent Publication Charge: At Sciencedomain International, we clearly and publicly provide all information regarding publication charge (http://bit.ly/publication-charge-sdi). Publication charge related all clear information is prior provided to all authors.

 Problem 6: Predatory publishers don’t provide clear information regarding the place of Head-Quarters of the publisher and actual place of operation. They also don’t reveal the name of the publisher.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

6.1 Publicly available Headquarters address: Sciencedomain International clearly displays information regarding registered address and Head-Quarters in the contact page. Sciencedomain International also provides the name of the publisher and contact details. Please see here: http://bit.ly/contact-sdi

Problem 7: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to the satisfaction of authors. Actually, they harass the authors in different stages of publication. They are also not transparent regarding customer satisfaction.

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 7.1 Direct posting of author feedback: At Sciencedomain International, we believe that quality peer review should attract appreciation from all authors, irrespective of the nature of the review decision (i.e. Acceptance or Rejection). Testimonials of the authors are presented publicly on our website. From 06-04-2016, Sciencedomain has provided direct comment posting feature in the website. Authors, who want to share their experience directly, can use this feature. We welcome any kind of feedback (positive or negative). Apart from this direct experience sharing facility, authors can also share their experience via email, which will be posted by our IT staffs. We are proud to say that we take the satisfaction of authors very seriously. This may be the reason of our lowest possible “Credit Card Charge reversal and Dispute” cases against us (in some calendar year we have zero such cases). Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1

Problem 8: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to the satisfaction of reviewers and never maintain transparency (if they do peer review)

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

8.1 Transparent information and recognition of reviewers: We follow the best possible industry standard for reviewer satisfaction. In all published papers, we publish the name of the reviewers and also publicly publish the review reports along with published papers. We also publicly publish the list of reviewers yearly once. Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among top 1000 journals and  38 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among top 3000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank  (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

Problem 9: Predatory publishers are less attentive regarding plagiarism checking, formatting, etc

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

9.1 Established Plagiarism Policy: SCIENCEDOMAIN international strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. SCIENCEDOMAIN international aims to publish original high-quality research work. Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after an internal investigation and subsequently the paper will be retracted. Plagiarism policy of this journal is mainly inspired by the plagiarism policy of The Nature. Please see here for more information: http://bit.ly/plagiarism-policy-sdi

 Problem 10: Predatory publishers falsely claim attachment with famous academic institutions like the publication of research papers from reputed universities, etc

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 10.1 High Profile authors: High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like  Harvard University,  Columbia University,  Cambridge University, University of Chicago,  UC Berkeley,  Göttingen University, etc. We are thankful to authors for keeping faith in our transparent high standard peer review process, high editorial standard, etc. Sciencedomain publishes a list of authors, who have published at least one paper in any SDI journal. A hyperlink of the published paper has been provided with the name of the author(s) for verification. This list is partial. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles

 Problem 11: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention for permanent digital archiving of published papers

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 11.1 Permanent digital preservation policy: Sciencedomain International is happy to announce that all our journals are now permanently archived in Journal Repository (JR). Journal Repository (JR) is among the fastest growing community-supported digital archives in the world. Please see here: http://bit.ly/digital-preservation-sdi

 Problem 12: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to follow “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing”, introduced by OASPA, COPE, DOAJ and WAME

Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

 12.1 Self-compliance report publication: Excellent guidelines regarding ‘Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing’ have been established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association and the World Association of Medical Editors. We sincerely thank OASPA-DOAJ-COPE-WAME for this great effort. Sciencedomain International feels that we must follow these guidelines and should publicly publish a ‘self-compliance report’ for public and scholarly scrutiny. We’ll heartily welcome any valuable feedback to improve our journal. A comment section is available below the self-compliance report card. We’ll be happy to receive ‘peer-review report’ regarding our journal. Please see here for more details: http://bit.ly/compliance-report-oaspa

Sciencedomain fights against predatory publication practices

Many open-access publishers publish low-quality research papers. They only want to make easy money, so they publish whatever articles they receive without peer review. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, if they receive the publication charge. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such ‘pay to publish’ journals, who publish anything without peer review. But at the later stage, his intention and methodology to identify predatory journals were questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall’s evaluation was biased and highly erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

Sciencedomain fights against predatory publication practices for many years. Sciencedomain is also a victim of predatory publication model and many times Sciencedomain was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as Sciencedomain also follow open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of Sciencedomain with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image and business of Sciencedomain in many ways.

Some distinguished operating principles of Sciencedomain are discussed below. These below mentioned points clearly prove the difference of Sciencedomain with predatory publishers.

  1. OPEN Peer review:

Sciencedomain International journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don’t do peer review to publish any paper. As Sciencedomain journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing can not be applied against Sciencedomain international. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don’t follow the predatory publication model.

Some examples:

  1. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
  2. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
  3. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.1 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal

Now it is obvious that all publisher will tell good about itself. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article.  Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Hindawi, etc.

  1. POST-publication peer review:

The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system.  SDI journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote “Post-publication peer review”. Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review.  As a result of this “Post-publication peer review”, if authors agree and or journal Editors agree (and or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).

  1. Transparent Editorial Board:

All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world. But we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.1 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals

Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation.  We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors.  Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

  1. Moderate Acceptance rate:

SDI journals have average 51-63%. Even some authors praised openly about our peer review system, though their paper was rejected. Please see here some proof: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1

  1. Publons ranks 6 SDI journals among top 1000 journals of the world

Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from Sciencedomain International was placed among top 1000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank  (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

  1. High profile authors

High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like  Harvard University,  Columbia University,  Cambridge University, University of Chicago,  UC Berkeley,  Göttingen University, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles

From the above discussion, it is imperative to say that Sciencedomain does not follow predatory publication practices.

Sciencedomain International fights against predatory publishers

Many open-access publishers publish low-quality research papers. They only want to make easy money, so they publish whatever articles they receive without peer review. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, if they receive the publication charge. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such ‘pay to publish’ journals, who publish anything without peer review. But at the later stage, his intention and methodology to identify predatory journals were questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall’s evaluation was biased and highly erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

‘Sciencedomain International’ fights against predatory publication practices for many years. ‘Sciencedomain International’ is also a victim of predatory publication model and many times ‘Sciencedomain International’ was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as ‘Sciencedomain International’ also follow open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image and business of ‘Sciencedomain International’ in many ways.

Some distinguished operating principles of ‘Sciencedomain International’ are discussed below. These below mentioned points clearly prove the difference of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with predatory publishers.

  1. OPEN Peer review:

‘Sciencedomain International’ International journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don’t do peer review to publish any paper. As ‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing can not be applied against ‘Sciencedomain International’. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don’t follow the predatory publication model.

Some examples:

  1. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
  2. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
  3. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.1 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal

Now it is obvious that all publisher will tell good about itself. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article.  Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Hindawi, etc.

  1. POST-publication peer review:

The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system.  SDI journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote “Post-publication peer review”. Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review.  As a result of this “Post-publication peer review”, if authors agree and or journal Editors agree (and or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).

  1. Transparent Editorial Board:

All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world. But we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.1 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals

Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation.  We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors.  Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

  1. Moderate Acceptance rate:

SDI journals have average 51-63%. Even some authors praised openly about our peer review system, though their paper was rejected. Please see here some proof: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1

  1. Publons ranks 6 SDI journals among top 1000 journals of the world

Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ International was placed among top 1000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank  (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

  1. High profile authors

High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like  Harvard University,  Columbia University,  Cambridge University, University of Chicago,  UC Berkeley,  Göttingen University, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles

From the above discussion, it is imperative to say that ‘Sciencedomain International’ does not follow predatory publication practices.

Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) confirmed high standard of SCIENCEDOMAIN international journal and its editors

ScienceDomain International are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) confirmed high standard of their journal and editors (Article link: http://bit.ly/nature-sdi). As per the article, an investigation found that dozens of academic journals offered ‘ Anna Szust –Dr Fraud’ — a sham, unqualified scientist — a place on their editorial board. Thousands of academic journals do not aspire to quality. They exist primarily to extract fees from authors. These ‘predatory’ journals exhibit questionable marketing schemes, follow lax or non-existent peer-review procedures and fail to provide scientific rigour or transparency. Crucial to a journal’s quality is its editors. Editors decide whether a paper is reviewed and by whom, and whether a submission should be rejected, revised or accepted. Such roles have usually been assigned to established experts in the journal’s field, and are considered prestigious positions. Many predatory journals hoping to cash in seem to aggressively and indiscriminately recruit academics to build legitimate-looking editorial boards. The authors of the article conceived a sting operation and submitted a fake application for an editor position to 360 journals, a mix of legitimate titles and suspected predators. Forty-eight journals accepted the application.

One of SDI journals were also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation. They also sent the application. But SDI editorial screening committee rejected that the application as it was very low quality and suspicious. The profile was dismally inadequate for a role as editor. In fact, ScienceDomain International never bothered to send a reply to the applicant. ScienceDomain International has not sent even a rejection mail.

The original mail is here: http://bit.ly/first-mail-1

The source code of the mail is here (for authenticity checking): http://bit.ly/mail-sourcecode

The CV of the applicant is here: http://bit.ly/fake-cv

ScienceDomain international maintain a very high-quality stringent evaluation process during the selection of editors. Their editors are chosen after a 6 steps checking process. SDI selects the editors, who only pass these six-step evaluation criteria. Additionally, SDI publicly publishes profile link, the institutional link of the editors. To maintain the highest level of transparency, SDI follows ‘open peer review’ process. Along with the published paper, SDI journals publicly publish all the peer review reports, editorial reports, and different versions of the revised manuscript. Names of the editors and reviewers are also published publicly along with any published paper.

SDI congratulates all their esteemed editors to maintain the high standard of their journals. SDI is also thankful to the editors, as they do tremendous hard-work in different rounds of peer review process to uplift the quality of published papers. SDI is also thankful to the reviewers of our journals, who relentlessly work to evaluate manuscripts. Without the sincere, dedicated and honest help of editors and reviewers from the very beginning, SDI journals cannot maintain this high quality.

Peer Review History: Assessment of Four Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) Varieties for Adapatibility and Productivity in Iwo, Osun State

Abstracts

Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent especially in sub-Saharan Africa because most available food contains negligible amounts of beta-carotene which fail to meet the physiological requirements resulting in the impairment by high rates of infection. However, introducing orange-fleshed sweet potato cultivar with high ß –carotene will help eradicate the problem of vitamin A deficiency, malnutrition and food insecurity in Iwo, Nigeria. Aim: Therefore, the primary goal of this project is to enhance food security and smallholder farmers’ income including women and young people in Iwo by introducing orange-fleshed sweet potato with high nutritional values. The varieties used were: Mother’s delight (V1), King J (V2), Iwo I (V3) and Iwo II (V4). The field experiment was conducted at the Teaching and Research Farm of Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State from July to October 2017. Data were taken on leaf length, leaf breadth, petiole length, plant height and tuber yield (kg). V4 had the highest number of tubers per row (17) although, it was not statistically different (P<0.05) from V1 which gave the lowest number of tubers per row (14.25). V2 had the most extended petiole length of 32.06cm, and it was statistically different (P<0.01) from the remaining three potato varieties under evaluation. V3 was the highest yielding variety with a tuber yield of 2.93kg, but it was not statistically different (P<0.05) from V1 which had the lowest tuber yield (2.05kg). V1 (an orange-fleshed variety) had the relatively lowest number of tubers per row but gave tuber yields (2.05kg) comparable with the highest yielding variety (V3 = 2.93kg), which is a locally cultivated and adapted variety. It can be concluded that the introduced ranges were similar in performance to the adapted landraces. It is recommended that the introduced varieties (specifically V1, the orange-fleshed potato) be adopted by the farmers for cultivation as the performance of both introduced varieties was significantly compared with the landraces cultivated by Iwo farmers.

See more details

Peer Review History: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Brazilian Women without Metastasis to Axillary Lymph Nodes: Ten-Year Survival and Prognostic Factors

Abstracts

Aims: To determine the 10-year overall survival (OS) in triple-negative (TN) and non-TN breast cancer (BC) patients, and to identify associated independent prognostic factors.

Study Design: Descriptive and survival.

Place and Duration of Study: Pathology Division at National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, between 1992-1996.

Methodology: Population: 348 women patients with invasive ductal carcinoma without lymph node metastasis. Analyzed variables: age, treatment, surgery type, tumor size, skin involvement, histological grade, vascular invasion, estrogen and progesterone receptors, HER-2, Ki-67 and p53. Statistical analysis performed: Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log rank test, and multivariate Cox models.

Results: 27% of the studied women were categorized as TNBC and 73%, as non-TNBC. The former showed higher frequency of age <50yr, preoperative chemotherapy, tumors >5cm, high grade, vascular invasion, and positive p53, (P=.05). Ten-year OS among TNBC patients was 61.6%, and 70.1% for non-TNBC patients (P=.058). Survival was higher in TNBC patients treated with partial surgeries, tumors ≤5cm, without skin involvement, low grade, and Ki-67 negative (P=.05). Among non-TNBC patients, higher survival was observed in patients without skin involvement, low grade, no vascular invasion, and p53 negative, (P=.05). Cox modelization showed a 2-fold higher death risk for TNBC patients aged ≥50yr, about 2.5-fold higher risk related to preoperative chemotherapy, high grade tumor and skin involvement, and a 3.0-fold higher risk for Ki-67 positive patients (P=.05). For non-TNBC patients, a 2.0-fold increased death risk was verified in patients with skin involvement and vascular invasion (P=.05).

Conclusion: TNBC patients showed a worse prognosis and survival when compared to non-TNBC patients. A worse 10-yr survival among TNBC patients was associated with age ≥50yr, preoperative chemotherapy, skin involvement, high histological grade, and Ki-67 positive tumors. For non-TNBC patients, the worst prognosis was related to skin involvement and vascular invasion. These predictors need to be further validating by other studies.

See more details

Peer Review History: Quantitative Assessment of the Risk Associated to Bacillus cereus Group for the Attieke Consumer in Daloa City (Côte d’Ivoire)

Abstracts

Aims: Attieke is a fermented cassava product. It may be contaminated by species of Bacillus cereus group, responsible for food poisoning. The objective of this study was to assess the risk associated with B. cereus group for the attieke consumer in Daloa city (Côte d’Ivoire).

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Formation and Research in chemistry and food sciences, Laboratory of Industrial Process Synthesis and Environment, Felix Houphouet-Boigny National Polytechnic Institute, between April and November 2017.

Methodology: First, an investigation procedure was followed. In this method, 386 persons were interviewed in order to determine the general pattern of attieke consumption and potential symptoms related to its suse. Then, physicochemical and microbiological analyses were carried out on thirty attieke samples collected in eight suburbs of Daloa city following standard methods. A probabilistic approach was followed to assess the risk related to attieke consumption quantitatively. Finally, the risk of ingesting the infectious dose of 1010 B. cereus cells was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation using both load distribution and consumption one. Data collected were subjected to statistical analyses.

Results: Physicochemical characterisation showed that the pH value, acidity and moisture content of attieke were 4.74 ± 0.76, 49.08 ± 28.93 meq.g/100 g and 51.46 ± 1.72%, respectively. These characteristics are within the recommended standards for attieke. The enumeration of B. cereus group gave loads ranging from 103 to 107 CFU/g. Besides, all the attieke samples were contaminated by these germs. A proportion of 50% of samples had poor quality. It appears that the risk exists and is 0.13% i.e., 130 cases per 100,000 inhabitants.

Conclusion: Attieke was contaminated by bacteria belonging to B. cereus group. Its consumption represents a risk of food poisoning. This risk is estimated to be 130 cases per 100,000 inhabitants.

See details

Hepatitis C Virus Infection among Pregnant Women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Prevalence, Correlates and Co-infection with HIV

Abstracts

Aim: Vertical transmission of Hepatitis C virus, often enhanced in the presence of HIV co-infection, results in unidentified perinatally infected children who present in adulthood with long-term complications of chronic liver disease. This study was set out to determine the prevalence of chronic HCV infection, co-infection with HIV and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Study Design: A cross sectional study.

Method: A total of 180 pregnant women attending the ante-natal clinic of the University College Hospital Ibadan, from March to August 2013, were screened for HCV using third generation Enzyme Linked Immuno-absorbent Assay (ELISA) and confirmatory assay using nucleic acid tests were done on positive samples. Anti-HIV-1 antibodies were identified using qualitative immunoassay determine test strips. Pretested validated questionnaire were used to obtain bio-data on sociodemographic characteristics and presence of possible risk factors for HCV infection. Data analyses was done using SPSS version 20.

Results: Overall seroprevalence of anti-HCV antibody was 1.7% (3/180) and anti-HIV-1 antibody was 20.6% (37/180). All HCV positive samples had HCV RNA identified in them but no detectable viraemia. No co-infection between HCV/HIV was observed. Low level of education, marital status, and positive history of surgical procedures, blood transfusion and jaundice was significantly associated HCV infection.

Conclusion: Hepatitis C virus infection is less prevalent than HIV infection among pregnant women in Ibadan and its co-infection with HIV is uncommon. The sexual behavioural risk factors identified in this study were not predictors of HCV infection; however, these factors may predispose these pregnant women to other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

See full article

Sciencedomain International has taken a huge leap forward towards success in the year 2015

Since the beginning in 2011, Sciencedomain International has successfully delivered a myriad of journals to the science enthusiasts. They started with only 18 journals but in 2015, they have created an extensive portfolio of total 35 journals. As the competition is fierce in the journal publication industry, a number of journals from different publishers were unable to leave their mark in the industry. On the contrary, Sciencedomain International has taken a huge leap forward towards success in the year 2015 by controlling 0.27% of the global publishing market. Their growth rate is remarkable, and it is reflected from their 0.01% to 0.14% growth in the first four years of their operation. This growth rate is far more great than some other leading OA publishers in the industry. Sciencedomain International really appreciates everyone’s support to enable them reach at this current position in world publication market.

The Representation of Nigerian Indigenous Culture in Nollywood

Abstracts

The general objective of this study is to appraise the representation of the Nigerian (African) culture in the global market by the Nigerian Nollywood. Specifically, the study tries to find out how The Nigerian Nollywood projects Nigerian rich local cultural values to the outside world; and appraise how the influx of foreign cultural values into the Nigerian local film production affects the nation’s cultural heritage. Nigeria or Nollywood is chosen for this study because of her position in the continent and her leading role in the film industry in Africa. This study becomes also necessary because, despite the fact that Nollywood ranks and competes with Hollywood and Bollywood, in terms of quantity, locally outsell foreign ones, and are also appreciated all over the world; Nigeria continues to suffer negative image in the comity of nations and critics kept crying foul over the erosion of indigenous cultures. To this end, this study employs case reference analysis method and analyzed some films purposively selected for the performance of this task. The study observes among others that Nollywood dwells too much on the negative aspect of the nation’s cultural practices to the detriment of the nation’s image. It was also discovered that the act of borrowing themes, plots etc, from foreign films has done much harm than good to the preservation of the indigenous culture. The study concludes that the increasing quantity of filmic contents from the Nollywood had not helped much in the area of projecting the nation’s positive image and rich cultural heritage to the outside world as the quality of the filmic contents that emanate from the Nollywood remains grossly inadequate or usually situated out of context thereby re-enforcing the negative image fostered on Nigeria and Africa at large by the foreign media. The study therefore recommends among others that further productions should focus more on portrayal of the rich cultural Nigerian values rather than imitating the western culture or leaning narrowly on the nation’s or continent’s past negative cultural practices that have no place in the current Nigerian society anymore.

Keywords :

Nollywood; Nigerian culture; mirror effect; films; cultural values.

See full article