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.

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.

International journals with low publication charges

Publication charge of Science Domain international journals is extremely low compared to other open access publishers who often charge several hundred or thousands of dollars from authors. It is commendable that even at such low cost they are providing excellent and transparent OPEN Peer review service, DOI, permanent digital Archiving, wide indexing, etc. Papers published in Science Domain journals are attracting huge visitors as more than two millions visitors visited their journals with more than 7.9 million page view (see: http://sciencedomain.org/announcement/publication-and-site-statistics-up-to-sept-2015). It has attracted more than 22 thousands manuscript submission and published more than ten thousands papers. It is really an exciting record for any new publisher. Science Domain international journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. Comment section is mainly dedicated to promote “Post-publication peer review”. Therefore, all Science Domain international journals strictly follow ‘pre-publication OPEN peer review’ and strongly encourage “Post-publication peer review”.  Science Domain international journals follow transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system (Detailed general information is available in this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review). High quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers of the same field. OPEN peer review system provides the provision to reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other during review process. In order to add transparency further, details of all reviewers and academic editors are published in the first page of every published paper (in the Article Information section: see example). As a final step to provide highest level transparency in the process, all review comments, authors’ feedbacks, all versions of the manuscript and editorial comments are published (along with date) with the paper in ‘Review History’ link (See example 1example 2example 3, etc). This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review.

Science Domain journals are determined to promote integrity in research publication. Science Domain journals follow the guidelines, given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. Please see following three pages to know the related polices followed by SDI journal.

a. General Editorial policy: http://sciencedomain.org/page/sdi-general-editorial-policy

b. Plagiarism related policy: http://sciencedomain.org/page/sdi-general-editorial-policy#SDI-plagiarism-policy

c. Correction and retraction policy is available here: http://sciencedomain.org/page/sdi-general-editorial-policy#SDI_Correction_and_retraction_policy

Examples of some cases are presented below. Detailed investigation reports and communications are digitally archived.

1. Example 1 (http://sciencedomain.org/abstract/8409)

2. Example 2 (http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/8741)

3. Example 3 (http://sciencedomain.org/abstract/6115)

4. Example 4 (http://sciencedomain.org/abstract/6118)

Science Domain journals follow the excellent guidelines regarding ‘Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing’, 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. Science Domain journals sincerely thank OASPA-DOAJ-COPE-WAME for this great effort. Science Domain journals additionally publicly publish a ‘self-compliance report’ for public and scholarly scrutiny. Science Domain journals heartily welcome any valuable feedback to improve (see here: http://sciencedomain.org/journal/32/odc-compliance).

Since inception, this publisher is making constant efforts to promote integrity and transparency. It is completely baseless libel that SCIENCE DOMAIN international is a predatory publisher, as no other publisher put these much efforts to adhere to best publishing practices.

Source: www.journalgazett.com

Association of Soil Parameters with Various Age Classes of Forests of Mukundpur, Satna, Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstracts

Aims: This forest area was susceptible to illicit felling, encroachment and illicit mining. From this problem the forests are changing from stocked – under stocked – blank forests. The majority of the area are blank and under stocked category. To re-vegetate the blank and under stocked area into stocked forests, the soil parameters in the study area were needed to be studied in detail. In the present study the associations of soil parameters like pH, electrical conductivity, availability of major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) and micro nutrients like (copper, manganese, iron and zinc) with various age classes of forests were analyzed.

Study Design: Stratified systematic random sampling.

Place and Duration of Study: Study area was the forest area of 111.55 km2 of Mukundpur range of Satna Forest division, Madhya Pradesh, India. Field work was carried out during October 2015 to January 2016.

Methodology: The vegetation sampling had been done to assess the forest resource survey. Stratified systematic random sampling method was used for sampling the vegetation. The minimum numbers of sample points were calculated using statistical formula. The 151 sample points at 30”x 30” were selected on safer side with the help of GPS. Half kg of soil sample was collected from central quadrat from the depth of 30 cm from the sample point and air-dried under shade. These samples were sent to soil testing lab Rewa to assess the soil parameters pH, electrical conductivity, organic carbon, available nitrogen, available P2O5, available K2O and micronutrient analysis for availability of zinc, iron, manganese and copper. The Microsoft access program was developed to evaluate the above soil parameters in various age classes of forests. Age classes of forest are defined as, Mature: where average girth of forest trees is more than 120 cm, Middle age: where the average girth of trees of a particular forest stands between 61-120 cm, Young age: where average girth of trees of particular stand is below 60 cm.

Results: Results of individual soil parameters on various age classes of forests were summarized below:

The average value of pH in different age classes did not change significantly with average value of pH of the study area. The electrical conductivity within encroachment and blank category significantly changed but in medium and young age classes it did not differ significantly with average electrical conductivity of the study area. In encroachment and blank organic carbon content and available nitrogen were significantly higher but in medium and young age classes these parameters did not change significantly with the average value of organic carbon content and available nitrogen of the study area. The average value of available phosphorous in blank and young age classes did not change significantly but in encroachment and medium young age class it was significantly higher than the average value of available phosphorous of the whole study area. The average value of available K2O in encroachment, blank and young age class did not change significantly but it changed significantly in medium age class with average K2O value of study area. Except the encroachment category, the average zinc and iron value in blank, medium and young age classes did not change significantly with average value of the study area. The average value of Mn in encroachment and blank varied significantly but in medium and young category it did not change significantly with the average value of the study area. The average values of Cu with in Blank and young age classes did not change significantly but it had changed significantly in encroachment in medium age class with average value of the study area.

The results of combined effects of pH, EC, Organic Carbon and combined impact of nitrogen, P2O5and K2O (macro nutrients) did not have significant association within various age classes of study area. The results of combined effects of Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu did not have significant association within various age classes of study area.

Conclusion: The effects of pH, electrical conductivity and organic carbon were not significant in age classes of study area either individually or jointly. The available nitrogen did not play significant role in age class formation of forest but P2Oand K2O did make significant impact on medium age classes individually, but the combined effects of nitrogen, P2O5 and K2O (macro nutrients) did not have significant association within various age classes of study area. Individually the Zn, Fe and Mn did not play significant impact on age class formation of the forest, though Cu is significant in medium age classes. The overall impacts of Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu did not have significant association within various age classes of study area.

Keywords :

Age class; pH; electrical conductivity; organic carbon content; macro nutrients and micro nutrients.

See full details..

Preliminary Studies on Potential Industrial Applications of Conorandos panados Seed Oil

Abstracts

Conorandus panados plant known in Higgi language as ‘Mnizee’ in Michika Local Government of Adamawa State, Nigeria, was found to be a plant of some industrial importance. The hexane extract of the seed oil was Physico-chemically analyzed; functional groups determined using IR, fatty acid composition qualitatively determined using GC-MS. The oil yield was 120 cm3/400g of the grounded seed and the colour of the oil was yellow. The results of the physicochemical analysis revealed the following; Acid value 0.052 mgKOH/g, iodine value 107/100 g, Peroxide value 2.600 meq H2O2, Saponification value 788 mgKOH/g, relative density 0.906 g/ml (sp = 0.906),  Refractive index 1.47, the percentage yield is 27.18%. The fatty acids detected were 2-Methyl-4-heptenal/C8H18O,4-Heptanal/C7H12O, 1,5-Hexadiene/C6H10, 2-isononenal Zinc/C9H15ZnO, 9,12-OctadecadienoicAcid/ C18H32O2, Oleic Acid/ C8H34O2 acid, 1,2-Binaphthalene/C20H14, Undec-10-ynoic Acid/ C11H18O2, 5-Hexenoic Acid/C6H18O2, Cyclopentaneundecanoic Acid/C16H30O2, 9,12-Octadecadienoyl Chloride /C18H31ClO, Acetamide/C2H5NO. In this study, the result obtained vis a vis; saponification value, iodine value, acid value coupled with the presence of oleic acid, makes C. panados seed oil suitable for use as a paint binder, and soap production. It is also a good candidate for foam making this is due to the polyols of this oil will give a high number of OH, which is suitable for foam production. The preliminary investigation reveals that C. panados seed oil could be used as paint binder, soap making and foam production pending further research.

Keywords :

Conorandus panados; seed oil; physico-chemical; GC-MS; paint-binder; foam; saponification.

Read full article.

Industrial Sustainability and the Circular Economy as Counterparts to the Self-referral Mechanics of Natural Law: Part I—A Theoretical Foundation

Abstracts

In Maharishi Vedic Science, the self-referral mechanics of Natural Law are considered fundamental to any complete understanding of nature’s functioning, since Natural Law is understood to be the unmanifest (i.e., non-physical) home of all the laws of nature and the unbounded source of order and intelligence responsible for creating and guiding the physical universe. This proposition is recognizable in modern scientific theories of the ‘unified field’. Moreover, the circular structure and self-referral loops of Natural Law are said to underlie and guide every level of a manifest hierarchy. Among the hallmarks of industrial sustainability are its emphasis on harnessing renewable energy and recycling principles, both designed to limit the impact of polluting activities on the environment and to improve commercial performance. To circumvent the so-called ‘take, make, dispose’ linear economic mentality of the past, contemporary industry has also begun embracing models of circular economy, in which materials and energy are circulated and cascaded through the economic system, with waste either minimized, reused or eliminated altogether. The self-referential nature of recycling and the cascading circularity of circular economies thus bear a prima facie similarity to how Natural Law is structured and functions in continuous self-referral loops.

For that reason, in this Part I of a two-part series of research papers, we explore the fundamental nature of industrial sustainability and circular economy, showing them to be counterparts to the self-referral feedback mechanism of Natural Law as described in Maharishi Vedic Science.

Keywords :

Industrial sustainability; circular economy; Maharishi Vedic Science; self-referral; natural law.

See full article.

Deficit Financing and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A Preliminary Investigation

Abstracts

The fact that Nigerian economy has experienced some setbacks over the last four decades despite the growth of public expenditure cannot be overemphasized. This study thus investigates the incessant rises in government expenditure and the implications of deficit financing on Nigerian economic growth. It traces various governmental efforts in revamping the economy between 1970 and 2010, a period of 41 years.
From the literature, it was discovered that deficit financing has become an important tool to correct distortions in an economy if it is put into the most judicious use. However, in Nigeria the reverse is the case as the economy has perpetually being at disadvantages in terms of macroeconomic performance, making it a contentious phenomenon. Thus, there is need for a study to investigate this.
The data for the study were obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin and were analyzed using the econometric technique of Vector Auto Regression (VAR). The findings show that deficit financing had not achieved the desired results in Nigeria as revealed by negative impact of deficit financing on economic growth. This can be adduced to the prevailing socio-cultural mal-adaptation coupled with perennial corrupt practices in the economy.
The study recommends that government should reduce wastage in public spending, ensure greater budgetary discipline and adopt a financial structural transformation. In addition, reviewing and rationalizing the existing government parastatals with a view of pruning down the number to a reasonable level was also recommended among others. This is necessary for effective expenditure control purpose.

Keywords :

Deficit financing; vector auto regression; macroeconomic; mal-adaptation; budget; economic growth.

See details