A group of geologists in China have lost their paper on the aerodynamics of sand particles because the article was mashed together from previous publications.
The article, “The influence of sand diameter and wind velocity on sand particle lift-off and incident angles in the windblown sand flux,” appeared in the May 2013 issue of Sedimentary Geology. It was written by a team from the Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Western Disaster and Environment at Lanzhou University.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief. This article also contains significant similarity with parts of text, written by the same author(s), that have appeared in
-Tian-Li Bo, Xiao-Jing Zheng, Shao-Zhen Duan, Yi-Rui Liang, The influence of wind velocity and sand grain diameter on the falling velocities of sand particles, Powder Technology, Volume 241, June 2013, Pages 158-165
-Tian-Li Bo, Xiao-Jing Zheng, Shao-Zhen Duan, Yi-Rui Liang, Analysis of sand particles’ lift-off and incident velocities in wind-blown sand flux, Acta Mechanica Sinica, April 2013, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 158-165
-Tian-Li Bo, Xiao-Jing Zheng, Shao-Zhen Duan, Yi-Rui Liang, Influence of sand grain diameter and wind velocity on lift-off velocities of sand particles, The European Physical Journal E, May 2013, 36:50
-Tian-Li Bo, Shao-Zhen Duan, Xiao-Jing Zheng, Yi-Rui Liang, The influence of sand bed temperature on lift-off and falling parameters in windblown sand flux, Geomorphology, Volume 204, 1 January 2014, Pages 477-484.
The “slicing” of research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers represents an abuse of the scientific publishing system.
The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.
Some of the authors have made waves before. We also found this correction in PLoS ONE of a 2013 article by some of the same authors titled “Incident Angle of Saltating Particles in Wind-Blown Sand”:
Multiple funding organizations and grants were incorrectly omitted from the Funding Statement. The Funding Statement should read: “This research was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Numbers 11072097, 11232006, 11202088, 10972164, 11121202), National Key Technology R&D Program (2013BAC07B01), the Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Number 308022), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Numbers lzujbky-2009-k01, lzujbky-2012-203) and the Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Number 2009CB421304). The authors express their sincere appreciation to the supports. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
We emailed Tian-Li Bo for comment and received a short email:
I’m sorry for this matter to bother you. I agree to retract the paper. We have no other articles need to be retracted.
The following IEEE Conference is FAKE, BOGUS, PREDATORY, JUNK, CRAPPY and BRIGANDISH because
a) There is no Chairman and there is no committee
b) There are no reviewers at all
c) They automatically publish papers in Journals without clear and transparent review process
d) As it happens in the majority of IEEE Conferences (95% of all IEEE Conferences) the Registration fee are Βrigandish and Predatory (You pay 400 Pounds for one CD-ROM! What a robbery!)
f) The Web Site of this conference looks COMMERCIAL and not Academic at all!
g) They emphasize on Excursions and Trips on their Web Site and not in academic benefits
e) They sent us a lot of SPAM. See their ridiculous SPAM below:
We invite you to submit your papers/posters/demo proposals for the upcoming SAI Intelligent Systems Conference 2015 (IntelliSys 2015) to be held on November 10 &11, 2015 in London, UK.
This conference will focus in areas of intelligent systems and artificial intelligence and how it applies to the real world. It is an opportunity for researchers in this field to meet and discuss solutions, scientific results, and methods in solving intriguing problems in this field.
The conference programme will include paper presentations, poster sessions and project demonstrations, along with prominent keynote speakers and industrial workshops. IntelliSys 2015 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, UKRI Chapter and supported by Springer.
All IntelliSys 2015 presented papers will be published in the conference proceedings and submitted to IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Inspec, Google Scholar and more. Past SAI Conference proceedings are already indexed in these databases. The IEEE proceedings will be published under an ISBN number (and an IEEE Catalog number). Authors of selected outstanding papers will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for consideration of publication in various international journals and books including a Springer book.
Our site fakeconferences.blogspot.com has just discovered one more fake and Bogus IEEE Conference, The following IEEE Conference is FAKE, BOGUS, PREDATORY, JUNK, CRAPPY and BRIGANDISH because a) There is no Chairman and there is no committee b) There are no reviewers at all c) They automatically publish papers in Journals without clear and transparent review process d) As it happens in the majority of IEEE Conferences (95% of all IEEE Conferences) the Registration fee are Βrigandish and Predatory (You pay 720 EUR for one CD-ROM! What a robbery!) f) They sent us a lot of SPAM. See their ridiculous SPAM below:
Dear Colleagues, [SPAM from FAKE, BOGUS, PREDATORY, JUNK, CRAPPY and BRIGANDISH IEEE "conference"] Following up the great number of requests received from many participants (especially those submitting to Invited Sessions), the Organizers are pleased to announce that the deadline for full paper submission to all sessions of 15th IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering, in Rome (Italy) from 10th to 13th June, 2015, has been extended again to March 31st, 2015 ! A special issue of the International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering will publish selected papers from the Conference. Also IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications and IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery will consider papers selected by the Technical Committee that are within the scope of the journals. The conference proceedings are indexed by all major databases, including Web of Science (THOMSON REUTERS Conference Proceedings Citation Index), IEEE Xplore, SCOPUS, and many others. The conference is fully sponsored by IEEE Italy Section and co-sponsored by IEEE Poland Section, IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society (EMC) , IEEE Industry Application Society (IAS) and IEEE Power and Energy Society (PES). [SPAM from FAKE, BOGUS, PREDATORY, JUNK, CRAPPY and BRIGANDISH IEEE "conference"] We invite you to register and submit your papers via our website http://eeeic.eu using the link:
The Science and Information Organization is hosting the SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys 2015) from November 10-11, 2015 in London, UK. This conference will focus in areas of intelligent systems and artificial intelligence and how it applies to the real world. It is an opportunity for researchers in this field to meet and discuss solutions, scientific results, and methods in solving intriguing problems in this field.
The conference programme will include paper presentations, poster sessions and project demonstrations, along with prominent keynote speakers and industrial workshops. IntelliSys 2015 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, UKRI Chapter.
Important Dates: Early Bird Submission (Submit early and save £50!)
All IntelliSys 2015 presented papers will be submitted to IEEE Xplore and indexed in various international databases like Scopus, Inspec, Google Scholar and more. Past SAI Conference proceedings are already indexed in these databases. Authors of selected outstanding papers will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for consideration of publication in various international journals and books.
Honorary Chairs Dr. Lotfi A. Zadeh, University of California, Berkeley, USA Dr. Kevin Warwick, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at Coventry University, UK Dr. David Fogel, President of Natural Selection, Inc., USA
SPAM SPAM SPAM WORLD SCIENTIFIC: An Absolutely Predatory Spammer. WORLD SCIENTIFIC has accepted and Published over than 250 garbage (fake, SCIgen) papers within the recent 5 years. See: http://fakeconferences.blogspot.com/2014/03/spam-from-bogus-fake-junk-world.html Enjoy their SPAM. Our Blog reports the fake and bogus publishers - Sharks of the Academic World. We do not shoot only the small publishers. We report small and big FAKE, BOGUS Publishers. Every garbage-conference can publish its proceedings with World Scientific and/or Imperial College Press provided that the organizer will pay these fully commercial (for profit only!) publishers.
We are pleased to introduce the following title that may be of interest to you. If you like what you see, do recommend it to your library and colleagues.
Apply this discount code to enjoy 20% off Discount Code: WSFEB20 | till 18 February 2015
US$68 / £45 / S$90US$54.40 / £36 / S$72
US$138 / £91 / S$182US$110.40 / £72.80 / S$145.60
Elements of Fluid Dynamics is intended to be a basic textbook, useful for undergraduate and graduate students in different fields of engineering, as well as in physics and applied mathematics. The main objective of the book is to provide an introduction to fluid dynamics in a simultaneously rigorous and accessible way, and its approach follows the idea that both the generation mechanisms and the main features of the fluid dynamic loads can be satisfactorily understood only after the equations of fluid motion and all their physical and mathematical implications have been thoroughly assimilated. Therefore, the complete equations of motion of a compressible viscous fluid are first derived and their physical and mathematical aspects are thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, the necessity of simplified treatments is highlighted, and a detailed analysis is made of the assumptions and range of applicability of the incompressible flow model, which is then adopted for most of the rest of the book. Furthermore, the role of the generation and dynamics of vorticity on the development of different flows is emphasized, as well as its influence on the characteristics, magnitude and predictability of the fluid dynamic loads acting on moving bodies.
Endless FAKE, BOGUS, CRIMINAL, PREDATORY IEEE and ACM Conferences:
All the Proofs are here.... Hundreds of SCIgen (completely machine generated papers) are published in IEEE every year (Google: Cyril Labbe IEEE)
The blog http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/ reveals the dark role of ACM and IEEE: They discovered an IEEE/ACM crappy event (they called it ... conference) that publish in the same Proceedings all the junk and garbage of the academia:
In the same volume they publish everything: Full Papers, Short Notes, Abstracts, Demos, Power Point Presentations, Exhibitions, Book Inspections, Seminars and Proposals for Projects. The most junk and the most predatory fake IEEE / fake ACM conference is here:
Fake IEEE Conference is cosponsored by ... ACM, publishes Full Papers, Short Notes, Abstracts, Demos, Power Point Presentations, Exhibitions, Book Inspections, Seminars and Proposals for Projects in the same volume! Shame IEEE! This is the SPAM of the IEEE/ACM Fake, Bogus, Predatory, Scam, Sham, Junk Conference. Low quality and NO REVIEWERS at all.
IEEE/ACM ASONAM 2015
The 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining
Dear Colleague,You are invited and highly encouraged to consider submitting your high quality original manuscripts to the flagship venue and premier conference in the area of social network analysis and mining (ASONAM 2015) or one of the co-located events.
All types of submissions are welcome, including full papers, short papers, extended abstracts, posters, demos.
FOSINT-SI 2015: The 2015 International Symposium on Foundations of Open Source Intelligence and Security Informatics; Paris, France, August 27-28, 2015. For more information visit:http://fosint-si.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/
HI-BI-BI 2015: The 2015 International Symposium on Network Enabled Health Informatics, Biomedicine and Bioinformatics, Paris, France, August 26-27, 2015. (Submissions are due April 18). For more information visit:http://hi-bi-bi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/2015/
All accepted papers will be published in the proceedings which will be included in the digital libraries of both sponsors: ACM and IEEE Computer Society.
Following the trend from previous years, extended versions of accepted papers from ASONAM 2015 will be invited for publication in one of the following prestigious venues by Springer:
All are in the for-profit sector, and the profits are enormous. As reported in the Economist (2011): “ Elsevier, the biggest publisher of journals with almost 2,000 titles, cruised through the recession. Last year it made £724m ($1.1 billion) on revenues of £2 billion—an operating-profit margin of 36%”. Springer’s Science + Business Media (2010) reported a return on sales (operating profit) of 33.9% or € 294 million on revenue of € 866 million, an increase of 4% over the profit of the previous year. In the first quarter of 2012, John Wiley & Sons (2011) reported profit of $106million for their scientific, medical, technical and scholarly division onrevenue of $253 million, a profit rate of 42%. This represents an increase in the profit rate of 13% over the previous year. The operating profit rate for the academic division of Informa.plc (2011, p. 4) for the first half of 2011 was 32.4%, or £47 million on revenue of £145 million, an increase of 3.3% over the profit of the previous year.
These huge profit margins are not only increasing far above the rate of inflation but publishers are now actively forcing third world countries out of academia
To our dismay and anger, a few international STM publishers, using their monopolistic position, recently demand to raise the subscription prices for their full-text database at a yearly rate of more than 14% for the next 3 years and by 2020, to raise the prices for developing countries to the level of those of the developed countries.
We expect our institutions to spend millions on journal subscriptions, this is deemed essential so the fruits of knowledge help fund the research of the future. The system fails when over a third of the cash-flow is creamed off the scientific process during the publishing stage. Moreover, all those outside leading western universities are left without access to journals (assuming they do not have $799 dollars plus to spare for a subscription or $25 for one-time access, for one day, at one computer (Sage, 2011). Ironically much research is therefore unavailable to the very people it is designed to help. This problem is something all scientists should be aware of, perhaps not only the Medline ranking but also the profit margins of publishers should be a key consideration of what journal to publish with. (Edit 16/01/2012: On the topic of impact factors, it has been revealed that some publishers are now requiring researchers to cite recent research from their own journal in a bid to artificially boost their journal’s rankings, a very dodgy practice indeed.)
The cruel irony is that for research to be placed under lock and key in a for-profit journal, the researcher will have paid for education and time spent researching; then the researcher’s institution must spend hundreds on hotel fees and flights as well as many hundreds of pounds for a conference ticket, plus an insertion fee, often based on the number of pages in the publication (as is the procedure in the world’s largest engineering journal). Even open access publishers charge hefty fees, BioMedCentral’s fee of $1,640 is described as average, even PLoS charge $1,300 to $2,900 to publish. Surely a happy medium can be found, unfortunately for “Scientific & Academic Publishing, USA“ the blunderbuss approach is unlikely to be the way to the hearts and minds of the academic community but we shall have to wait and see.
Upon discovering that research isn’t published in a reputable journal, perhaps the real question on our lips should not be is this journal for real? But rather, has thisresearcher proven that they have applied appropriate rigorous controls and is there a free and fair forum for the researcher’s conclusions to be questioned?
Reference: Morrison, Heather. (2012). Scholarly Communication in Crisis. Freedom for scholarship in the internet age. Simon Fraser University School of Communication. Doctoral dissertation (in process)
At the time, we mentioned two other articles, in the Hydrogeology Journal, that appeared destined for retraction — not least because KU requested that the journal yank them. But in a rather surprising move, the journal is declining to do so, and another publication, the Journal of Hydrology, is taking the same approach.
Here’s the notice from Hydrogeology Journal editor Clifford Voss:
In late February 2013, the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS), a research and service division of the University of Kansas (KU), found that a number of papers written by a then staff member, Dr. Marios Sophocleous (retired from KGS in June 2013), appeared to have been plagiarized from earlier work. KU explained to Hydrogeology Journal that, following multi-stage investigations, which included opportunities for Dr. Sophocleous to explain his actions, KU concluded that Dr. Sophocleous had committed scholarly misconduct. KU then publicly censured him (University of Kansas 2013).
Two of the seven articles cited in the censure statement appeared in Hydrogeology Journal (HJ) and KU has requested of publisher Springer and the HJ executive editor (EE) that both be retracted. KU provided a detailed analysis of each paper, indicating which passages were plagiarized and the source of the plagiarized material; these analyses are available from KGS upon request.
The EE and publisher, Springer, did independent reviews of the papers and agree with KU that a large portion of the text was copied verbatim from previous articles written by other authors. The copied passages all lacked quotation marks to indicate that they were directly quoted from previous works.
The EE’s assessment is as follows. In most cases, the reference from which the material was copied verbatim is given close by in the text by Sophocleous. Thus, Sophocleous did not claim that the copied ideas were his own; however, Sophocleous neglected to indicate that he had not composed these passages by including quotation marks around copied text. It is clear that review articles normally consist of information compiled from previous works, but text copied verbatim must be enclosed in quotation marks. Thus, the copied unquoted text must be strictly considered as plagiarism, but Sophocleous’ referencing of most copied passages indicates that he was giving credit to the previous authors from which he copied, and not hiding the fact that the material was not his own. In a positive view, his error might be considered to be a technical one, in which he neglected to use quotation marks; however, the EE and Springer agree with KU that this style of presenting information from previous works, even in review articles, is unacceptable.
KU has stated that it views these papers as compilations of plagiarized material and has requested they be withdrawn to demonstrate to the hydrological community that such practices cannot be tolerated. One response to the KU retraction request that was considered by the EE was to republish the two articles with all necessary quotation marks in place; however, this would appear peculiar as a large portion of the text in each article would be within quotes. This makes it clear that reviewers would have rejected a manuscript composed of largely quoted material.
In deciding how to respond to the retraction request, the EE has also considered the value of these two articles to the scientific readership. Both articles are reviews of their subject matter, not presentations of new scientific results. These HJ articles are highly cited and indeed, one is among the most highly cited of all time in HJ. Thus, both articles were and are still of clear value to the scientific community. Therefore, the EE has concluded that retraction would be a disservice to the community.
KU disagrees with the conclusion of the EE and continues to assert that both papers should be retracted. However, in the interest of bringing the matter to a close, KU has agreed to accept publication of this Editor’s Message in place of retraction, given that a link to this is attached to both papers in the Springer online archives.
And here’s the notice from Corrado Corradini, who edits the Journal of Hydrology:
On January 6, 2014 the University of Kansas contacted the editorial team of Journal of Hydrology about the following situation:
In late February 2013, the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS), a research and service division of the University of Kansas, found that a number of articles written by a then staff member, Dr. Marios Sophocleous (retired from the KGS in June 2013), appeared to be influenced by plagiarism. On December 11, 2013, after an analysis of the Investigating Committee, the University of Kansas concluded that Dr. Sophocleous had committed scholarly misconduct relating to plagiarism and self-plagiarism and it publicly censured him at:news.ku.edu/2013/12/11/public-censure.
In the communication to the Journal of Hydrology on January 6, 2014 the KGS specified that according to the committee the following articles contained substantial plagiarized passages:
(1) Sophocleous, M.A., 2012. The evolution of groundwater management paradigms in Kansas and possible new steps towards water sustainability. Journal of Hydrology, 414–415, 550–559.
(2) Sophocleous, M.A., 2000. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources the Kansas experience. Journal of Hydrology, 235(1–2), 27–43.
As an Editor in Chief of Journal of Hydrology for the subsurface water area, I have examined these two papers together with all the references the Committee esteems have been plagiarized.
Many sentences of the two manuscripts are really paraphrased or reproduced from papers earlier published and their identification by the Committee of the University of Kansas is substantially accurate.
The paper by Sophocleous (2000) is a critical overview which uses the Kansas experience as a support. The paper by Sophocleous (2012) is neither a technical nor review paper but comprises an historical description of acts and procedures enacted by Institutions of the Kansas State. To some extent, these typologies of works need to include paraphrasing or reproduce text from previous publications, even though the above mentioned papers contain an excess of these kind of quotes to former studies. All the source papers are substantially cited in the vicinity of the parts paraphrased or reported in the same form, however not placed between quotation marks. In addition, these parts of text are rearranged in a different framework and under different contexts for different audiences. The relatively high number of citations highlights the important role of these two papers.
I realized that at the time of the submissions, the team of Journal of Hydrology was unable to notice the problems linked with the two papers. In fact, most source papers quoted are technical reports or local publications, practically inaccessible to the editors who handled the review processes as well as to the reviewers. Most source papers are currently not identifiable by the plagiarism detection software because they are absent from the widely used database systems.
I would also like to clarify, the Journal of Hydrology was informed of the allegations of plagiarism and self-plagiarism only 2 and 14 years after the publication of Sophocleous (2000) and Sophocleous (2012), respectively.
An overall analysis of the aforementioned elements leads me to exclude the retraction of the two papers and to write this Editorial Note summarizing the critical elements discussed and my conclusions.
For the sake of completeness the main source papers involved are given below.
A substantial part of the reproduced material in Sophocleous (2012) derives from:
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2010. Review: groundwater management practices, challenges, and innovations in the high plains aquifer, USA: lessons and recommended actions. Hydrogeol. J. 18 (3), 559–575;
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2011. Groundwater legal framework and management practices in the high plains aquifer, USA. In: Findikakis, A.N., Sato, K. (Eds.), Groundwater Management Practices, IAHR Monograph Series. CRC Press, pp. 325–366; and significant contributions are also derived from:
– Aiken, J.D., 1980. Nebraska Ground Water Law and Administration. Faculty Publications: Agricultural Economics. Paper 30;
– Peck, J.C., 2006. Groundwater management in Kansas: a brief history and assessment. Kansas J. Law Public Policy 25 (3), 505–516;
– Peck J.C., 2007, Groundwater management in the high plains aquifer. In: Mark Giardano, Karen G. Villholth (Eds.), The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution. Opportunities and Threats to development. pp. 296–319;
– Rolfs, L.E., 2006. Comparing and contrasting the roles of the Division of Water Resources and the Groundwater Management Districts in groundwater management and regulation. Kansas J. Law Public Policy 25 (3), 441–465.
The main part of the reproduced sentences in Sophocleous (2000) is taken from:
– Sophocleous, M.A., 1998. On the elusive concept of safe yield and the response of interconnected stream-aquifer systems to development. In: Sophocleous, M.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development of Water Resources in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin, 239, pp. 6–85; but a significant part derives also from:
– Balleau, W.P., 1988. Water approximation and transfer in a general hydrogeologic system. Natural Resources Journal 29 (2), 269–291;
– Bredehoeft, J.D., Papadopulos, S.S., Cooper Jr., H.H., 1982. Groundwater: The Water Budget Myth. In: Scientific Basis of Water Resource Management. National Academy Press, Studies in Geophysics, pp. 51–57;
– Sophocleous, M.A., Buddemeier, R.W., Buchanan, R.C., 1998. Evolving sustainability concepts: Modern developments and the Kansas Experience. In: Sophocleous, M.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development of Water Resources in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin 239, pp. 86–95;
– Sophocleous, M.A., 2000. The origin and evolution of safe yield policies in the Kansas Groundwater Management Districts. Natural Resources Research 9 (2), 99–110.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the University of Kansas, despite having arrived to a different conclusion than my own, has agreed to accept that an Editorial Note is published, given that a link to this note is attached to both articles in the Elsevier online archives. This note will hopefully bring the matter at hand to a close.
The editorial, we should note, is behind a paywall.
Now, we’re all for editors having leeway, but this decision, to put it mildly, is a very slippery slope. On the one hand, we agree that retraction is a blunt instrument that at times is the least best option. On the other, neglecting to retract because an article is “of clear value to the scientific community” is pretty porous rock: Science has standards, some of which should be inviolate.
Voss seems to agree. He told us:
Fabrication of data or results is never acceptable and should never be allowed. Had fabrication been the case regarding Sophocleus, we would have retracted.
In the Sophocleus case, there was a lack of quotation marks, but all quoted material was carefully referenced by the author. The public plagiarism discussion lead by Univ of Kansas will be enough to make the point to the scientific community that excessive quoting and lack of quotation marks is not a professional way to write articles. Sophocleus did great work in writing those papers and these still provide valuable information and compilations for hydrologists – however, his style of composition was lacking.