Shame for IEEE, Springer Verlag, ACM, AIP, WorldScientific, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier

For more than 8 years our blog has identified that IEEE, Springer Verlag, ACM, AIP (American Institute of Physics), WorldScientific (Singapore), Taylor and Francis, Elsevier conferences are fake, bogus, scam, sham, mock and predatory. Now we have additional Proofs:

Visit: http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/24/springer-ieee-withdrawing-more-than-120-nonsense-papers/

or google: IEEE 120 SCIgen Papers

The IEEE SCIgen Papers were 85 two years ago:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/71/35/55/PDF/0-FakeDetectionSci-Perso.pdf
Several Blogs (included netdriver.blogpost.com) reported this. In 2014, these SCIgen papers in IEEE were 120.

Let''s start with the IEEE SCIGen Fake Papers of 2009. What's happened in 2009:
In 2009, we had received the following email from a girl that was working in IARIA's secretariat.

IEEE Computer Society Press sent it in January 17 (2009) to all the IEEE Sponsored, Co-Sponsored Conferences as well as to conferences
that publish their Proceedings with IEEE CS Press. It is impressive how many IEEE conferences are based on a review on the Abstract!.


From: EButterfield@computer.org
to: EButterfield@computer.org
cc: ABurgess@computer.org,
John Walz: , Reisman, Sorel" , AStickley@computer.org, TBaldwin@computer.org, r.sterritt@ulster.ac.uk
date Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:03 AMsubject Confidential: Important CPS Message Regarding Fraudulent Machine-Generated Paper Submissions


TO: CPS Clients FROM: Evan Butterfield, Director of Products and Services RE: Fraudulent Machine-Generated Paper Submissions (CONFIDENTIAL) DATE: 16 January 2009

The IEEE Computer Society (CS) has evidence that multiple (IEEE) conferences are receiving machine-generated papers. In two cases, conferences have actually accepted an obviously fraudulent submission. This is a serious issue that threatens the credibility of your conference, the quality of the digital library, and the reputation of both the IEEE and CS. It requires your immediate attention. Please take this opportunity to ensure that your peer review processes are being followed, and adapt to any new requirements that may be communicated by the IEEE or the Computer Society. No conference published by CPS should rely on an abstract review. It is very important that you review carefully the full text of all papers submitted to your conference. If you have already accepted papers, your program committee should review the full text again. While CPS staff will be conducting random spot-checks of conference papers in the publishing queue, we are relying on you to authenticate the content of your proceedings. Any papers that were not actually presented at your conference need to be brought to our attention, and should receive close review. In known cases, the machine-generated origin is obvious from a reading of the first few paragraphs of the paper; the abstracts are human-generated and do not indicate the quality of the paper itself. In the past, papers have been submitted by “Herbert Schlangemann,” but be mindful that the perpetrator of this fraud will change the approach over time. In the event you discover any evidence of questionable content or behavior, please communicate that to us immediately along with an action plan for addressing the problem. Thank you for your help in maintaining the quality of our products.

END OF 2009 IEEE EMAIL

2/07/2008

WASHINGTON Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — Politicians have finally found an issue they all can agree on: Telemarketers calling at dinnertime are a scourge that must be repulsed.

Congress on Wednesday sent to President Bush two bills that would make permanent a program to protect consumers from unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. Its hallmark is the national "do not call" list.

"This initiative has proven to be one of the most popular laws in history," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C. Extending the program was necessary "to avoid the wrath of millions of angry constituents."

The Do Not Call Registry, initiated in 2003, has been widely acclaimed for allowing Americans to eat their suppers in peace. Some 150 million people have listed their phones on the registry, which prohibits calls from telemarketers.

"I remember times we just used to take our phones off the hook," said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., a leader on the issue, recalling pre-registry days.

"Consumers without exception hate the annoyance of intrusive telemarketer calls at dinnertime," said Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union. "When nearly every American household has taken the time to register, that says something really strong."

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, put it in political terms: "With a 10% approval rating it is incumbent upon us to continue to pass legislation that is indeed popular."

The House passed by voice vote and sent to the president a bill to make permanent the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees to run the program. "My legislation keeps the program free, simple and effective for consumers," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., sponsor of the Senate bill.

Telemarketers pay annual fees of up to $17,050 and must search the registry every month and drop from call lists the phone numbers of consumers who have registered.

The Congressional Budget Office said the fees will bring in $107 million over the next five years. Consumers can remove their numbers from the list at any time.

The Senate later approved by a voice vote and sent to the White House a bill, promoted by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to make the list permanent, overturning an FTC rule that people re-register their phone numbers every five years. The FTC reasoned that re-registering would update the list to account for people who move and switch their phone numbers. Critics argued that the list is already scrubbed each month of numbers that have been disconnected and reassigned to new customers.

David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, said that some 50 million phone numbers could be dropped off the list in September without a change in a rule that most Americans are unaware of. The FTC has given assurances it would wait for congressional action before eliminating any numbers.

The AARP has been active on the issue from the beginning, Certner said, both because seniors are more susceptible to telemarketer fraud and may not have the mobility to answer repeated calls. "For some seniors these calls are more than just a minor inconvenience."

Violating the Do Not Call Registry subjects telemarketers to civil penalties up to $11,000 per violation. Last November the FTC announced nearly $7.7 million in settlements with six companies accused of calling people on the list.

In all, said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., sponsor of the House's fee extension bill, the FTC has collected $25 million in civil penalties and relief for consumers.

Organizations engaged in charitable, political and survey work are exempt from the restrictions. Also, companies that have an established business relationship with a customer may call for up to 18 months after the last purchase, payment or delivery.

No comments:

Post a Comment