Many Universities consider that many IEEE Conferences are garbage. Some of them consider that even in the IEEE Journals the review is ridiculous and h
some important editor of IEEE
See these link and examine the word: unrefereed
Forward this message to your mailing lists with reference to us
See what a commentor with the name "Doppler" posted today
I successfully defended my PhD dissertation in August 2009.
The conference of IEEE where my supervisor sent me was held in July
This IEEE Conference was a complete dissaster and fiasco.
Some session has good papers, but the majority of the papers were of very bad quality
This was my third conference in IEEE.
Their coffee-breaks were unacceptable, just plain coffee.
No meals -- no banquet at all!!! (We had to pay extra money for meals and Banquet)
I am not sure if someone would post this announcement in your blog.
When I receive an unsolicited CFP from IEEE conference, I always ask the sender as to from where they got my email address from. They never replied!!!!
For the tutorials we had to pay 400 USD extra though they were of very bad qualityPublish it because I am sure that those IEEE organizers were "Mafia"
The answer to me was
I believe that many IEEE (sponsored or co-sponsored) conferences are quite bogus because they have published a lot of fake papers from SCIgen automatic machine or papers of low quality...
We must be careful, otherwise our massive policy for giving the name of IEEE to strange organizers will harm the reputation of IEEE conference, if we have kept any rank of such an old reputation.
Prof. DARIO PETRI
IEEE Italy Section
other fake conferences
Merck published fake journal
Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles--most of which presented data favorable to Merck products--that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which was published by Exerpta Medica, a division of scientific publishing juggernaut Elsevier, is not indexed in the MEDLINE database, and has no website (not even a defunct one). The Scientist obtained two issues of the journal: Volume 2, Issues 1 and 2, both dated 2003. The issues contained little in the way of advertisements apart from ads for Fosamax, a Merck drug for osteoporosis, and Vioxx. (Click here and here to view PDFs of the two issues.)
The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to serve as a marketing tool was first reported by The Australian about three weeks ago. It came to light in the context of a civil suit filed by Graeme Peterson, who suffered a heart attack in 2003 while on Vioxx, against Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Australia (MSDA).
In testimony provided at the trial last week, which was obtained by The Scientist, George Jelinek, an Australian physician and long-time member of the World Association of Medical Editors, reviewed four issues of the journal that were published from 2003-2004. An "average reader" (presumably a doctor) could easily mistake the publication for a "genuine" peer reviewed medical journal, he said in his testimony. "Only close inspection of the journals, along with knowledge of medical journals and publishing conventions, enabled me to determine that the Journal was not, in fact, a peer reviewed medical journal, but instead a marketing publication for MSD[A]."
He also stated that four of the 21 articles featured in the first issue he reviewed referred to Fosamax. In the second issue, nine of the 29 articles related to Vioxx, and another 12 to Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions regarding the MSDA drugs. "I can understand why a pharmaceutical company would collect a number of research papers with results favourable to their products and make these available to doctors," Jelinek said at the trial. "This is straightforward marketing."
Jelinek also pointed out several "review" articles that only cited one or two references. He described one of these articles as "simply a summary of an already published article," and noted that they were authored by "B&J Editorial."
"It appears that 'B&J' (presumably Bone and Joint) refers to the Journal, and B&J editorial presumably to the publishers or owners as there is no editor of the journal," Jelinek said in his testimony. "This is a subtle attribution, and many readers may not realise that the paper was written by the owners or publishers of the journal, presuming that is who would write under the heading of 'editorial'."
Lurie, in examining two of the issues for The Scientist, agreed that one particularly strange element of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine is that it contains "review" articles that cite just one or two references. "I've never seen anything quite like this," he said. "Reviews are usually swimming in references." For example, one article on osteoporosis labeled above the title as a "meta-analysis" cites two references -- one itself a meta-analysis. "To the jaundiced eye, [the journal] might be detected for what it is: marketing," he said. "Many doctors would fail to identify that and might be influenced by what they read."
Lurie noted that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine is akin to other publishing strategies employed by drug companies; paying for supplements to existing journals or publishing compilations of original research articles that tend to lack scientific rigor (so-called "throwaways"). "It's kissing cousin to two other tricks that the [drug] companies pull."
In response to several questions about the publication posed by The Scientist, an MSDA spokesperson wrote in an email: "MSDA understood that Elsevier envisaged the complimentary publication would draw on the vast resources of Elsevier, publishers of many leading peer-reviewed journals including Lancet, Bone, Joint Bone Spine and others, to deliver novel and timely full text articles and abstracts to physicians." Many of the articles appearing in the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were in fact reprints or summaries of studies that originally appeared in other Elsevier journals.
A spokesperson for Elsevier, however, told The Scientist, "I wish there was greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal." Disclosure of Merck's funding of the journal was not mentioned anywhere in the copies of issues obtained by The Scientist.
Elsevier acknowledged that Merck had sponsored the publication, but did not disclose the amount the drug company paid. In a statement emailed to The Scientist, Elsevier said that the company "does not today consider a compilation of reprinted articles a 'Journal'."
"Elsevier acknowledges the concern that the journals in question didn't have the appropriate disclosures," the statement continued. "It is worth noting that project in question was produced 6 years ago and disclosure protocols have evolved since 2003. Elsevier's current disclosure policies meet the rigor and requirements of the current publishing environment."
The Elsevier spokesperson said the company wasn't aware of how many copies of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were produced or how the publication was distributed in Australia, but noted that "the common practice for sponsored journals is that doctors receive them complimentary." The spokesperson added that Elsevier had no plans to look further into the matter.
One of the members of Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine's "Honorary Editorial Board," Peter Brooks, a rheumatologist in Australia, said he didn't recall who asked him to serve on the board, but noted that he was on Merck's Asian Pacific and international advisory boards from the mid 1990s until about 2004, as well as the advisory boards of other pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Amgen. "You get involved in a whole bunch of things at this level," Brooks said, adding that he had put his name on "a few advertorials" for pharmaceutical companies about 10 years ago.
As for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, he said, "If it would have been put to me that [the journal] was just sort of a throwaway, then I would have said 'no'" to serving on its editorial board. He said he was never paid for his role, adding that he "didn't ever get [manuscripts] to review or anything like that," while on the board, because the journal did not accept original manuscripts for review.
"Having looked at one issue, it actually had some marketing studies," Brooks said. "It also had papers that were excerpted from other peer-reviewed journals. I don't think it's fair to say it was totally a marketing journal."
Editor's note (April 30): This story has been updated from a previous version.
WE RECEIVED THIS EMAIL: Prof. DARIO PETRI firstname.lastname@example.org accepted the bad quality of IEEE Sponsored conferences
An impressive declaration from Prof. DARIO PETRI email@example.com
I believe that many IEEE (sponsored or co-sponsored) conferences are quite bogusbecause they have published a lot of fake papers from SCIgen automatic machineor papers of low quality...We must be careful, otherwise our massive policy for giving the name of IEEE to strangeorganizers will harm the reputation of IEEE conference, if we have kept any rank of such an old reputation.
Prof. DARIO PETRI
IEEE Italy Section
From the following blog http://bogus-conferences.blogspot.com
we took the following post:
The IARIA continuing its policy of absolutely non-reviewed articles and the IEEE publishes all the Proceedings with garbage papers of IARIAWe do not know anymore what to assume. The IARIA continuing its policy of absolutely non-reviewed articles and the IEEE publishes all the Proceedings with garbage papers of IARIA
The IARIA is a real disaster and a slap in the face of science.
Why doesn't IEEE stop to publish the IARIA proceedings? because of the commission of course!
The BOGUS IADIS Conferences sent us 6 different advertizements today. No possibility for unsubscribe!
This is the SPAM of the IADIS Bogus (fake) Conference
Apologies for cross-postings. Please send to interested colleagues and
-- CALL FOR PAPERS - Deadline for submissions (1st call extension): 4
December 2009 --
IADIS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE E-SOCIETY 2010
March 18-21, 2010 - Porto, Portugal
* Keynote Speaker (confirmed):
Christina Preston, MirandaNet Founder, UK
* Conference Background and Goals
The IADIS e-Society 2010 conference aims to address the main issues of
concern within the Information Society. This conference covers both the
technical as well as the non-technical aspects of the Information Society.
Broad areas of interest are eSociety and Digital Divide, eBusiness /
eCommerce, eLearning, New Media and E-Society, Digital Services in
eESociety, eGovernment /eGovernance, eHealth, Information Systems, and
Information Management. These broad areas are divided into more detailed
areas (see below). However innovative contributes that don't fit into
these areas will also be considered since they might be of benefit to
* Format of the Conference
The conference will comprise of invited talks and oral presentations. The
proceedings of the conference will be published in the form of a book and
CD-ROM with ISBN, and will be available also in the IADIS Digital Library
(online accessible). The best paper authors will be invited to publish
extended versions of their papers in the IADIS Journal on WWW/Internet
(ISSN: 1645-7641) and other selected Journals.
* Types of submissions
Full and Short Papers, Reflection Papers, Posters/Demonstrations,
Tutorials, Panels and Doctoral Consortium. All submissions are subject to
a blind refereeing process.
* Topics related to the Information Society are of interest. These
include, but are not limited to the following areas and topics:
«« eSociety and Digital Divide »»
Connectivity may imply social coherence and integration. The opposite may
result as well, when systematic measures are taken to exclude certain
individuals or certain groups. Papers are welcomed on the next keywords:
. Social Integration
. Social Bookmarking
. Social Software
. Social Integration
«« eBusiness / eCommerce »»
May include issues relating to:
. Business Ontologies and Models
. Digital Goods and Services
. eBusiness Models
. eCommerce Application Fields
. eCommerce Economics
. eCommerce Services
. Electronic Service Delivery
. Languages for Describing Goods and Services
. Online Auctions and Technologies
. Virtual Organisations and Teleworking
«« eLearning »»
May include issues relating to:
. Collaborative Learning
. Curriculum Content Design & Development
. Delivery Systems and Environments
. Educational Systems Design
. E-Citizenship and Inclusion
. eLearning Organisational Issues
. Evaluation and Assessment
. Political and Social Aspects
. Virtual Learning Environments and Issues
. Web-based Learning Communities
«« New Media and E-Society »»
May include issues relating to:
. Digitization, heterogeneity and convergence
. Interactivity and virtuality
. Citizenship, regulation and heterarchy
. Innovation, identity and the global village syndrome
. Internet Cultures and new interpretations of "Space"
. Polity and the Digitally Suppressed
«« Digital Services in E-Society »»
May include issues relating to:
. Service Broadcasting
. Political Reporting
. Development of Digital Services
. Freedom of Expression
. Open Access
«« eGovernment /eGovernance »»
May include issues relating to:
. Democracy and the Citizen
. Digital Economies
. Digital Regions
. eGovernment Management
. Global Trends
. National and International Economies
. Social Inclusion
«« eHealth »»
May include issues relating to:
. Data Security Issues
. eHealth Policy and Practice
. eHealthcare Strategies and Provision
. Legal Issues
. Medical Research Ethics
. Patient Privacy and Confidentiality
«« Information Systems »»
May include issues relating to:
. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
. Intelligent Agents
. Intelligent Systems
. IS Security Issues
. Mobile Applications
. Multimedia Applications
. Payment Systems
. Protocols and Standards
. Software Requirements and IS Architectures
. Storage Issues
. Strategies and Tendencies
. System Architectures
. Telework Technologies
. Ubiquitous Computing
. Virtual Reality
. Wireless Communications
«« Information Management »»
May include issues relating to:
. Computer-Mediated Communication
. Content Development
. Cyber law and Intellectual Property
. Data Mining
. ePublishing and Digital Libraries
. Human Computer Interaction
. Information Search and Retrieval
. Knowledge Management
. Policy Issues
. Privacy Issues
. Social and Organizational Aspects
. Virtual Communities
. XML and Other Extensible Languages
* Important Dates:
- Submission deadline (1st call extension): 4 December 2009
- Notification to Authors (1st call extension): 6 January 2010
- Final Camera-Ready Submission and Early Registration (1st call
extension): Until 27 January 2010
- Late Registration (1st call extension): After 27 January 2010
- Conference: Porto, Portugal, 18 to 21 March 2010
* Conference Location
The conference will be held in Porto, Portugal.
IADIS Secretariat - IADIS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE E-SOCIETY 2010
Rua Sao Sebastiao da Pedreira, 100, 3
1050-209 Lisbon, Portugal
Web site: http://www.esociety-conf.org/
* Program Committee
Piet Kommers, University of Twente, The Netherlands
Pedro Isaías, Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open University), Portugal
* for committee list please refer to
* Co-located events
Please also check the co-located events:
Information Systems 2010 (http://www.is-conf.org/) - 18-20 March 2010
Mobile Learning 2010 (http://www.mlearning-conf.org/) - 19-21 March 2010
* Registered participants in the e-Society conference may attend
Information Systems and Mobile Learning conferences' sessions free of
The ICEIMT hypermail/searchable archives may be found at URL:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
John Walz: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Reisman, Sorel" <email@example.com>, AStickley@computer.org, TBaldwin@computer.org, firstname.lastname@example.org
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 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.
Evan M. Butterfield
Director of Products & Services
IEEE Computer Society10662
Los Vaqueros Circle
Los Alamitos, CA 90720714.816.2165
Three graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology decided to do something about it. They created a computer program that would link together random scientific phrases, graphs and charts -- and they used the program to submit a bogus paper to a conference, which accepted it. Now that the graduate students are sharing their program, the bogus paper, and their acceptance letter with the world on a Web Site, the conference has uninvited them and unaccepted the paper. But the students think they have made their point.
In 2008 and 2009, several computer generated (gibberish) conference articles, with fictitious authors, appeared in IEEE Xplore Data Base coming from many IEEE Sponsored events. Other poor quality conference articles have also, occasionally, appeared in IEEE Confererences and consequently in IEEE Xplore. The IEEE itself accepted (see http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/corporate/board/ad_hoc_committees/qualityofconferencepapers.html )that such articles hurt the reputation of IEEE and destroyed confidence in the quality of IEEE publications. IEEE tried to find solutions against this vulnerability but in vain, because many more bogus papers appeared in the next months (see http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com and http://blog.marcelotoledo.org/2008/12/26/how-can-someone-trust-ieee )
I discovered that in May of 2009 also two new outbreaks of fake papers appeared in IEEE:
Please take careful note of the information below
about this IEEE Computational Complexity conference
It is another FAKE IEEE conference (fake IEEE spamference) this time on Computational Complexity.
The organizers are academic criminals.
Do NOT send these criminals any money.
Please send this warning on to your networks.
Many young people have been defrauded lately - and we must work together to defeat such efforts.
Use extreme caution when applying for conferences advertised by organizations unknown to you.
What a Shame for the IEEE Computational Complexity Conference!
two new bogus papers have been accepted in the http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/jrogers/complexity/accepted.html
Extractors for varieties ??????????by Zeev Dvir !!!
andExtractors for Low-Weight Affine Sources ??????? byAnup Rao
These 2 papers are absolutely fake papers.
What a Shame for the IEEE Computational Complexity Spamference!
In principle, the (laudable) goalis to generate and disseminate scientific information to us all.The decision about which articles and/or talksget into which journals and conferences is made byunbiased expert "referees".
Sounds great, but let's examine howthis actually works in practice.REFEREESFirst of all, 80% of all referees are idiots and 100% are amateurs.
By "idiot" I mean, either way too lazy to do a good job, or incompetent, or too biased due to some goofy agenda to judge the work unbiasedly(in roughly descending order of frequency),and in any of these cases, their effect is essentially that of tossing a coin.
In the remaining 20% of cases, let us say that the refereeis good and makes the right decision. In that case, the effect of anyone referee is a 60-40 biased coin toss.
In that case, if you have3 independent referees (which is common, although in some cases they use fewer) the probability is .4^3 = .064 > 1/16 that a unanimous wrongdecision is made.
Thus, you can publish essentially ANY garbage (especially in the thousand of IEEE Spamferences) if you simply keep re-submitting and have enough patience (and political skills probably help, e.g. being friendly with editors).
Note that on average 1 out of every 16 garbage submissionsleads to a unanimous acceptance decision, so if you submit and re-submita total of up to 8 times, the probability is >50% you'll get it published.It is considered unethical to keep resubmitting, and especiallyunethical to submit simultaneously to more than 1 journal,since these tactics overload the (already busted) system. Thisethical notion makes sense to me.
Unfortunately there is essentially no way todetect or (especially) enforce these ethics and I believe (and haveheard several scientists simply tell they do it and I should) theseunethical methods are simply standard methodology for many scientists.Indeed I have encountered several cases where apparently somebody slipped upin their tricks so that almost-verbatim copies of the SAME articlegot published in more than 1 journal roughly at the same publication time (which definitely is unethical; every published article is supposed to beNEW original research, aside from articles that clearly are reviews).
On the other hand, if you wrote an excellent paper, then the probabilityis still quite considerable that it will be rejected. Each rejection or acceptance can easily require years due to thepresence of super-slow referees (remember, all refereesare amateurs, i.e. unpaid volunteer do-gooders withzero accountability, indeed whose identities are kept secret!).Indeed in maybe 50% of all submissions, the journal simply apparentlyloses the paper (or something) and no rejection or acceptance ever comes back to the author. Ever.
You get a slip acknowledging receipt of thearticle, but that is all you ever get.
Note the expected number of submissions for an excellentpaper before it gets accepted unanimously is 1/(.6^3) = 4.6. Thusif you are ethical you could easily wait 10 years even before even beingable to publish an excellent paper. If you do not have the luck, patience,organization (and political skills?) necessary for this - merely theethics - then you aren't going to be very successful at publishingeven if your science is superb.The entire referee system is a non-working anachronism from the Victorian Ageof Noble Rich Dilettante Do-Gooders.
It is sort of like the asininenotions of "Amateurism" in athletics which are FINALLY being scrapped(e.g. the Olympics) after over 100 years. As science became bigger and becamean enterprise of numerous professionals rather than few amateurs, this systembecame incapable of doing the job, but everybody refused to admit it.
The resulting cost to society has been, and continues to be,absolutely immense.
MERE ANECDOTES?All the above numerical figures are based on my experienceas a professional scientist. However, my opponents couldattack them as merely my biased special anecdotal claims.To respond to that, consider the following study [PLACE CITE HERE LATER]:The authors of the study took 18 random already-published scientificpapers, changed the authors and titles, and sent them in to thesame journal as submissions, in all cases within a few years oftheir publication date (thus the articles were still reasonably up to date).Result: 16 of the 18 got rejected. (In 0 cases was the plagiarism detected.) I think this study totally supports my "anecdotal" conclusions from my personal experience, don't you? Case closed.JOURNALSMany are exceedingly overpriced. Often they adopt two-tier pricing systemswhere "libraries" have to pay an enormous rate (such as $20000 per yearper journal!?) while certain individuals pay a far smaller rate(otherwise none would buy it).
This combined with the vast proliferationof journals means few libraries can afford the cost. The result is thefailure of the whole mission of journals in the first place. The outrageousprices (which also vary by vast amounts from journal to journal;
Elsevier journals have particularly outrageous prices seem particularlyhard to understand since many scientist-authors now do their own computer typesetting, and the editing and refereeing costs are usually free (done by volunteer amateurs). Many journals have reams of "for show" editors who are selected because putting their names on the masthead makes the journal "look prestigious" -but those "editors" actually do no work.
Example: Turing Award Winnerand famous scientist Robert Tarjan told me he was a for-show editoron numerous journals and he'd finally decided to tell them all to removehis name - although he was primarily concentrating on getting thejournals which actually made him do work, to remove his name first!If you send your submission to some of those prestigious "editors" you can be in for an especially high probability your submission ends up inlimbo land - never accepted or rejected! (In my experience, this happened100% of the time I submitted to a non-chief editor, since at thatyoung and naive stage in my life I had not realized that only the CHIEFeditor is for real and should actually be submitted to, despitewhat the journal submission policy and masthead may say.)
Since journals are so screwed up (and they seem especially screwed up in fast-growing fields such as Computer Science, as opposed to say, physics,perhaps because everybody has been too rushed to get a semblance of professionalism going) many subfields of science (especially computer science) have instead become reliant on conferences. Conferences usually have far shakier standards of "refereeing" than journals(which already are pretty shaky!) and often lie by pretending tohave more refereeing than they in fact do have (in an effort to appear more "prestigious").Example: A too-typical "scientific" conference was VIDEA'95 organised by the Wessex Institute of Technology. (VIDEA = "Visualization and Intelligent Design in Engineering and Architecture", '95 is the1995 incarnation.) The fact that in this case the emperor had no clothes wasexposed by Werner Purgathofer, Eduard Groeller, and Martin Feda(Institute of Computer Graphics, Technical University of Vienna).
Previously, one of them had accepted the role of "member of the programcommittee" for VIDEA'93 and noted that (a) he received exactly zeroabstracts and zero papers to review, and (b) was never informed about anyprogram committee meetings nor of any reviewing results. So for VIDEA'95, these 3 generated and submitted 4 bogus papers withvarying degrees of hilarity (in one case the "call for papers"was submitted AS a paper, in another they"took a dictionary of information processing words and selectedrandomly some 40 phrases from there and joined them togetherto a fantastically technical sounding text."
All four were then "reviewed and provisionally accepted"! Their conclusion was: "VIDEA accepts EVERYTHING!" At that point the only remaining requirement for their 4 nonsensepapers to be published in the Elsevier proceedings ("high-quality books") wasthat the authors pay a "registration fee" (these fees often are $600 per paper). Oho, now we see the motivation...Wessex Institute of Technology also does 25 other conferences whichPurgathofer, Groeller, and Feda now suspect are also a joke.
Personally I think this kind of thing is quite typical of many ofthe high-volume low-quality conferences out there.At the other end of the scale, let us consider theallegedly highest quality conferences out there, which inTheoretical Computer Science means the SFOCS "Symposiumon Foundations of Computer Science" and STOC "Symposium onTheory of Computing" annual conferences. I've heard a professionalcomputer scientist say "Journal publications do not matter.Only FOCS and STOC papers matter." Careers can rest on publicationsin these conferences, which supposedly have a high rejection rate, andare refereed, thus assuring high quality. Oh? Really? Actually, for manyyears, the only "refereeing" you'd get back was a number from 1 to 5, as opposed to a referee's report.
Indeed often this was condensed into 1 bit,rather than 1 number! Oh yeah. We can be sure a lot of consideration went into that. And indeed various well known completely wrong FOCS and STOC papers were published, although it was much rarer for anybody to ADMIT that(the first ever example I saw where it actually was admitted was again a paper by the admirable Tarjan, who in the next conference published a retraction [R.E. Tarjan, C.J. Van Wyk: Correction to ``A Linear-TimeAlgorithm for Triangulating Simple Polygons''.
SFOCS 1987 page 486]perhaps in a failed effort to convince the rest of the conferenceauthors to be equally responsible - since apparently this was the first such retraction in about 20 years of these conferences). In fact, once when I was a referee and wrote a long referee report for a paperI cared about, the editor (Valerie King) REFUSED even to GIVEmy report to the paper authors, saying "I don't want a report. I want anumber from 1 to 5."
I then had to bypass her and send it tothem directly. I complained to the conference's editor-in-chief about this but nothing came of it. Also, once, after my paper was rejected (this was back when I was a grad student) with of course zero explanation, I luckily managed to get some verbal explanation of the reason bytalking to a Committee Member. It was:"Oh, well, somebody said this was all basically done before by Lovasz,so we rejected it." So then I said "But - Lovasz was the professor who advisedme to submit this paper!"
A typical scenario - the judgementsare based largely on vague rumors. Another amusing case demonstratingthe importance of being in the politically "in group" and the shallownessof the acceptance considerations was by my friend Bruce Maggs.He was in his advisor's (Leiserson, MIT) office one day.Advisor: "Well Bruce, I just was at the Program Committee Meeting for SPAA andthere was considerable debate about whether to accept your paper. The goingwas tough, but finally, I managed to ram it through. You are In."Bruce: "That's great doc, and I appreciate it a lot. But... I never submitted a paper."Nowadays these 2 conferences actually do send back actual reports (sometimes)although sometimes you still get nothing back, and more often than notthe reports are just 1 useless hastily written paragraph. IndeedI recently submitted 3 papers to one of these conferences, result:2 rejects and 1 accepted. I wrote to the editor saying inall 3 cases the judgement should have been reversed(!)documenting my reasons. I concluded the reasons for the errors werea combination of stupidity, low quality, zero referee accountability, andpolitical biases both pro and con (e.g. in one case the single referee, whoseidentity was obvious, found it very convenient for his career if my paper criticizing a certain approach, would just vanish. In the case wheremy paper which contained numerous errors and unsupportable hype,was accepted, it was politically inconvenient for it to be rejectedfor reasons of a similar but opposite kind.).
JUNKETSAs far as I can see, conferences are not good ways to disseminateinformation. Often authors are forced to talk for 20 minutes at most -and that is in the GOOD conferences like FOCS & STOC; in someconferences I have seen time limits below 10 minutes. This is a joke.In some conferences there are hundreds of such micro-talks. What percentageare you going to get anything from?One is supposed to fly 1000s of miles, consuming 100s of gallonsof irreplaceable petroleum (more than the annual per capita consumptionof average people in the world - each such flight is thus costingsome average world inhabitant over a year worth of the economicbenefits of gasoline) and the benefit that results is: a 10-minute talk??!
You get far more information by reading the paper in the proceedingsrather than seeing the talk.This is the communication age: The telephone; internet; Email; computerizedsearch tools to find just the paper you need to find. In such an age,it is scientifically and morally unsupportable to have most ofthese conferences. The real reasons many of them exist is NOT their scientific value, but
(a) insane holdovers from past ages,
(b) bean counting based promotion decisions causing pressure to "publish",
(c) opportunity by scientists to abuse their funders or employers to get free junkets to faraway places in the guise of "working".
(d) The conference organizers pocket hefty fees (over $600 per participant easily). The airlines and hoteliers are also happy of course...Only people who should be unhappy are the granting agencies and employers(and taxpayers), but they are manned by scientists who are in on the junkets too, so they don't complain and the corrupt system cruises on.
There have been cases [e.g. the "Winter brain conference"]where conferences held at ski resort areas have beencancelled due to lack of snow. My colleague Kevin Lang actually witnesseda medical conference at such a ski resort. Rather than giving their talks,the MDs had pre-recorded the talks on videotapes (allegedly this allowedthem to present a better quality talk in less time, plus it gotrecorded that way - sounds like a good idea I guess), and they thenplayed the videos at the lecturns. Lang witnessed a case where anabsent lecturer was lecturing via videotape-player to an empty room - while all the MDs involved presumably cavorted on the ski slopes.SCIENTIFIC CAREERSAre often advanced or stalled by boards who mainly utilize"bean counts" (publication counts) as their decision making tool,as opposed to actually trying to READ one's papers (that would requirework). Thus the pressure to publish can be immense, leadingto a giant proliferation of garbage publications,a trend toward more papers with fewer ideas, overloading of the busted system,and encouraging non-ethics. I believe bean-count is anti-correlated to ethics.The fact that most of these boards are mainly populated by coprolitescauses any consideration of the idea that maybe, just maybe, somethingis screwed up about the current system of Journals, Conferences, Referees,bean counts, Zero Accountability, and 100% Amateurism, to be dismissed. That in turn prevents any reform of the system.
HOW TO FIX THE SYSTEM:
1. Referee anonymity and consequent lack of accountability and responsibility has to be got rid of. Papers should beplaced on a web site like the xxx.lanl.gov site BUT submissions, andcomments, ref reports, and author responses to said reports, and rejections, should non-eraseably accumulateas attachments to it on the site. This also will make the tactic ofmultiple unethical submissions, visible.
2. I think if anything the anonymity should work in theother direction: refs should be named, author-identities should behidden from them.
3. Boards should actually (gasp!) read the scientist's work,which I believe they do not do, in general. (There even have been cases of scientists who enjoyed numerous promotions, including being grantedtenure, who in fact had zero publications, but listed a lot of fakepublications on their resumes. Evidently nobody actually went to thejournal "cites" in the resumes to actually read those "articles.")
If Boards plan to rely on bean counting, they could be replaced by my (non-scientist) sister, for a lot cheaper! This could be forced (or at least we could try) by making them make a report public reviewing that work.
4. Boards generally should be forced to operate in a non-secret mode (and all votes by them should be revealed vote-by-vote) and the evaluations and salaries of those they judge have to be made public so that info exists so that feedback and restoration-to-sanityforces become a possibility to try to at least have the possibility toget rid of incompetent board members, etc.All my attempts to make 1-4 happen have been failures, however.
The whole way refereeing is run (amateur volunteerism with zeroresponsibility) is a ludicrous way to run science.The whole journal system is obsolete and massively overpricedand fortunately may FINALLY be BEGINNING to collapse under its own weight,being replaced by web sites.
Note that web sites featuring a plethoraof unrefereed scientific papers actually in many ways have papersof HIGHER quality than do refereed journals:
(a) the papers can be searched by computer to find what you want,
(b) they can include data and programs no journal would publish (for space reasons)
(c) they could in future include actual software calculators, e.g. the reader fills in the blank with a number and out pop more numbers...
(d) the cites could be implemented as hyperlinks (including cites OF this paper by future papers, could be traversed both directions)
(e) accumulating positive and negative Comments and author Responses could be attached, ultimately having a referee-like effect far more accurate and severe than most actual refereeing ever is
(f) If the paper is bogus (as in MANY IEEE Conferences that you told me) this could eventually be revealed by an attached
Comment, preventing the paper from sitting around permanently as a trap waiting to destroy the work of some poor gullible graduate student or waste the time of some other reader.Meanwhile conferences show no sign of slackening - to the contrary.
ACADEMIC SPAM AND OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING
Judging by how much spam I get nowadays it seems academic open access publishing is lucrative.
I keep getting targeted spam from Bentham, Hindawi, InTech, and others. The strategy seems to be to mine reputable conference and journal papers for email addresses and then use them for targeted spam.
I have now received five emails from open access publisher InTech about a book chapter based on a previously published paper. These guys never give up! This is an excerpt from the last one:
Dear Dr. Kristensson,
We apologize for contacting you again on the matter of your nomination to contribute to the book named in the title of this email, but since we haven’t received an answer from you, we are taking the liberty of contacting you again (you may have been busy or our previous emails may have ended up in your email filters). However, this is the last email you will receive from us. If you can find time, please reply to our previous email which is below:
My name is MSc Iva Lipovic and I am contacting you regarding a new InTech book project under the working title “Speech Technologies”, ISBN: 978-953-307-152-7.
This book will be published by InTech – an Open Access publisher covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine.
You are invited to participate in this book project based on your paper “Automatic Selection of Recognition Errors by Respeaking the Intended Text”, your publishing history and the quality of your research. However, we are not asking you to republish your work, but we would like you to prepare a new paper on one of the topics this book project covers.
Why on earth would I spend time and effort to write a book chapter for a random individual I have never heard of and who doesn’t seem to have any credentials whatsoever in the field? And who reads these book chapters? And what exactly is the point of an open access “book chapter”? Sounds like a web page to me. With the exception I have to pay InTech plenty of money to put it up. I might as well just make the text available on the web myself.
Another open access publisher that likes to send spam is Hindawi. However, news to me was that Hindawi now spams on behalf of EURASIP, an organization I thought was reputable (until now):
Dear Dr. Kristensson,
I am writing to invite you to submit an article to “EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing,” which provides a rapid forum for the dissemination of original research articles as well as review articles related to the theory and applications of audio, speech, and music processing.
EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing is published using an open access publication model, meaning that all interested readers are able to freely access the journal online at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/asmp/contents.html without the need for a subscription.
Another example is Bentham who wants me to write a review on random patents based on keyword searches (the weirdest concept I have heard of so far for a journal):
Dear Dr. Kristensson,
Bentham Science Publishers has launched a series of innovative
journals publishing review articles on recent patents in major
therapeutic areas of drug discovery as well as biotechnology,
nanotechnology, engineering, computer science and material science
disciplines. Please refer to Bentham Science’s website at
http://www.pat-comp-sci.org/AllTitles for further details.
An exciting journal entitled “Recent Patents on Computer Science
(CSENG)” was launched in January 2008. This journal publishes review
articles written by experts on recent patents in the field of Computer
Science. Please visit the journal‘s website at
http://www.compscieng.org for the Editorial Board, sample issue,
abstracts of recent issues and other details.
Recent Patents on Computer Science (CSENG) is indexed in Genamics
If you would like to submit a review article to the journal on an
important patent area in Computer Science, then please provide us the
title of your proposed article and a tentative date of submission at
email@example.com. Moreover in your reply, could you please
suggest some specific keywords, keyword phrases related to your topic,
so that detailed patents may be sent to you for the preparation of
I keep wondering who is actually editing and reviewing all these journals and books. While they keep spamming me for paper submissions (and lucrative fees after they have accepted the papers), I haven’t received any invitations to do any reviews.
Junk Conferences / Spam Conferences / Spamferences / Academic Scams. Junk Conferences / Spam Conferences / Spamferences / Academic Scams ( T.Kovacz)
and we would like to write a post for the so called spamferences.
What is a spaference? What is a spamnal?
This post outlines the differences between good conferences, bad conferences and academic scams.
DEFINITION: Spamference is every conference that is promoted by Spam. The majority of IEEE conferences falls in this category.
DEFINITION: Spamnal is every journal that is promoted by Spam
DEFINITION: The purpose of conferences
Why would anyone organise a conference?
* To promote the exchange of ideas in a particular area
* To promote networking by researchers
* To generate funds for a non-profit organisation
* To focus attention on a particular area
* To promote the organisers' reputations
* To make a profit for the organisers
Why attend a conference?
* To learn about the area
* To interact with other researchers
* To add a publication to your CV
* To have a holiday somewhere nice
Most of the motivations above are generally altruistic, but the last two in each list are not. Promoting the organisers' reputations and adding to your CV are not necessarily bad; this is how academia works. However, these four motivations result in a lot of low-quality work being published.
If your motivation for attending a confernce is to have a holiday or to add (uncritically) to your CV the quality of the conference won't matter much. In contrast, if you attend for the other reasons quality is a major concern. Imagine attending a conference and not making any useful contacts or coming across any good ideas: you would not have not gained much!
You might still consider this conference worthwhile because you got a publication out of it. After all, having publications may help impress your supervisor or thesis examiners or potential employers. Publications will also help your career as a scientist: you will be more likely to get funding, to be promoted, to attract students, to be invited to give talks and so on. However, quality is vital and there is a huge range in the quality of conferences and journals. These days it's possible to get anything published. In fact, in the famous SCIgen affair a computer-generated nonsense paper was accepted by a conference. As a result, publications in themselves mean little; what matters is their quality. In fact, if you publish in low-quality conferences, or, worse, junk conferences, you will find this hurts your reputation more that it helps.
Spam and junk conferences
A spam conference (or spamference) is one which is advertised with junk mail (spam). It is genuinely difficult to reach a large number of researchers in a particular area to advertise a conference, and some organisers of legitimate conferences are tempted into using junk mail. These conferences tend, however, to be lower quality ones, or new (or one-off) events which need to boost their attendence in this way. Well-established, high-quality conferences are well-known in their area and don't need to resort to junk mail. These are the conferences which count most on your CV.
The conferences which send the most junk mail tend to be junk conferences, which have little or no academic value and are only run to make a profit for the oraganisers. Some researchers participate to get a free holiday and a publication but others participate in good faith, not realising the nature of the event. The point of this page is to ensure that you are not one of hem.
Where the money goes
Most conferences charge a fee for attendance which is put toward the cost of running the event. Some events also raise money for a non-profit organisation with which they are affiliated. The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence is an example of such an organisation, and it is a legitimate one, although I don't know whether fees from their conferences contribute to the association.
Some conferences, especially larger ones, subcontract some of the non-academic organisational work. Many conferences, however, are organised entirely by volunteers, although there may be concessions to the main organisers such as free registration. Invited speakers generally get free registration, a contribution toward travel costs, and possibly an honorarium (a small payment). The details of these arrangements are not usually publicised and there is the potential for dubious use of funds, but as each incarnation of a particular conference series is generally organised by different people each year it is difficult for misuse of funds to persist.
Although I see no reason why for-profit conferences cannot be of good quality there are a number of junk conferences which are run solely for profit, and where the quality of work is given little or no consideration.
* Here are some warning signs but note that bona fide conferences may show some of these warning signs; in particular many reputable conferences are held in nice places.
1) The conference is advertised using spam
(The IEEE Spam Conferences have this sign)
2) The conference has the same chair every year. (Bona fide conferences may have the same people on an executive committee for many years, but probably not the same chair.)
(The IASTED Conferences have this sign)
3) The call for papers emphasises repeatedly that it is a "reputable" conference with many "famous experts"
(The IEEE Spam Conferences have this sign)
4) The call for papers, and subject of the conference, is very general
(The IEEE Bogus Conferences have this sign)
5) The chair has chaired dozens of other conferences but probably has few good publications and does not work at a reputable institution
6) Many logotypes (IEEE, etc...) exist on the leaflet or on the web site
7) The conference is in a very nice place
Many Conferences have this bad sign
You are invited by a stranger to organise a special session (even in an IEEE Conference) or to undertake some other activity for the conference which would normally require some stature in the area, when you in fact do not have this stature.
For example if you are a PhD student it's unlikely you will be asked by a stranger to take a high-profile role. Having said that, invitations to serve on a programme committee are not that uncommon or that high-profile, and advertising for special session proposals is fine as long as they're not automatically accepted.
Open access journal scams (Fortunately the IEEE journals: The IEEE Transactions ARE NOT in this category)
Recently open-access journals have begun to appear. These journals provide free access to readers on the web and charge authors to publish. This is a big improvement over the traditional model of subscribing to journals since it makes results freely available to all. However, it allows for a new type of scam.
In August 2008 I was invited to join the editorial board of a journal, which is normally quite an honour. I work in the area of the journal but didn't recognise the editor and decided to check him out on the web before replying. It soon turned out this was an open access journal scam, which was new to me. The "publisher" was in fact a single individual at a private address who was attempting to recruit academics to serve on his various editorial boards in an attempt to make them look legitimate and so attract others to the editorial boards and to submit papers. This is what a major publisher does when setting up a new journal, but a major publisher has the resources to do this properly (remember the section on quality!). This individual appeared to be working on his own and apparently is not affiliated with any insitution and doesn't even have a degree. This is something like trying to pass yourself off as a doctor without having gone to medical school.
1) via the web the article:
Junk Conferences / Spam Conferences / Spamferences / Academic Scams. Junk Conferences / Spam Conferences / Spamferences / Academic Scams
of Tim Kovacz. October 2008.
And sick of the emails informing me of the good news that the deadline for submission has been extended due to popular demand (oh yes?). This mob are one of the worst. What the hell is a "IARIA" anyway.
This is academic spam from IEEE and IARIA (child of IEEE, expert in fake conferences). It should be treated like any other kind of spam. Unsolicited invitations to conferences are just as bad as unsolicited invitation to take out a loan, inform me of the result of the Lottery Winners or obtain cheap software. Looking at my spam box I see I've got one entitled "we want you not your money. That sounds like a conference - only they really are after your money. As for the excuse - that it had been accepted without review as the reviewers were late and it would be unfair to reject it - I don't believe a word of it. Right on to the MIt students. The research paper was clearly the work of experts. It had a long, baffling title and its authors were familiar with key topics such as "simulated annealing" and "flexible modalities". Submitted to the IARIA
a computer science event to be held in Florida in July, it was promptly selected for presentation. There was just one problem: it was complete gibberish. A random collection of charts, diagrams and obtuse lines such as "We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67", it was generated by a computer program written by three Massachussetts Insitute of Technology students.
Rob Thomas: Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, 2005 for IEEE WMSCI (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen )Mathias Uslar's paper was accepted to the IEEE IPSI-BG conference
Professor Genco Gülan published a paper in the 3rd International Symposium of Interactive Media Design
Students at Iran's Sharif University of Technology
published a paper in the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation (which is published by Elsevier). The students wrote under the false, non-Persian surname, MosallahNejad, which translates literally as: "from an Armed Breed". The paper was subsequently removed when the publishers were informed that it was a joke paper
Also except the IEEE junk conferences, the Conferences of Wessex Institute of Technology
are considered absolutely junk conferences. Look for example this link:
It seems also that the IEEE IARIA Conference accepted another bogus paper: http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-have-letter-of-acceptance-fantastic.html
A paper titled "Towards the Simulation of E-Commerce" by Herbert Schlangemann got accepted as a reviewed paper at the "International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering" (CSSE) and was briefly in the IEEE Xplore Database
The author is named after the Swedish short film Der Schlangemann. Furthermore the author was invited to be a session chair during the conference
Read the official Herbert Schlangemann Blog for details
The official review comment: "This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication. In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time. The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently, organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"
In 2009, the same incident happened and Herbert Schlangemann's latest fake paper "PlusPug: A Methodology for the Improvement of Local-Area Networks" has been accepted for oral presentation at another international computer science conference http://www.ieee-ecommerce.com/
Recently, Denis Baggi, Chairman, IEEE CS confessed, according to a comment on the Schlangemann Blog, that "Selection criteria such a refereeing etc. are meaningless", probably means that IEEE has accepted the unreliability and bogosity of its conferences. Denis Baggi also adds: "Articles should be written only if someone has something to tell others, in which case the validity of the paper is obvious".
Criticism concerning publishers
Recently, many fake papers appeared in several IEEE conferences, because the IEEE grants its name and its logo to many local organizers who supposedly do not conduct a thorough review process. It is being argued that such conferences only exist to make money out of researchers that are looking for a simple way to publish their work, in particular publishers like IARIA, http://www.iaria.org, HIGHSCI http://www.highsci.org and SRP http://www.scirp.org appear questionable. As seen from their web sites, IARIA, HIGHSCI and SRP use the name of IEEE and the IEEE publishing services, thus attracting numerous papers. Some people to test some conference go further and sent the paper "A Statistical Method For Women That Can Help Our Sexual Education" in the IEEE Conference organized by IARIA. This paper received automatic acceptance within a few hours with simultaneous "command" of direct payment. Unfortunately this paper was not published because the authors did not pay the registration fee. However the letter of acceptance is published on the web and anybody can check it: http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/, http://scamieee.blogspot.com/
which is absolutely crappy and dishonest.
This conference is also a Shame for the IEEE, because accepted 2 bogus papers
"Schlangemann" and other 2 from SCIgen MIT Machine
What a Shame really for the IEEE organizers!
The 2nd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing
(CISP 2009) and the 2nd International Conference on BioMedical
Engineering and Informatics (BMEI 2009) will be jointly held in
Tianjin, China, from 17 to 19 October 2009. We cordially invite you
to submit a paper and/or an exhibition.
Selected best papers will appear in SCI-indexed journal(s). The papers
published in the proceedings will be included in the IEEE Xplore
and submitted to Ei Compendex for indexing (CISP 2009 IEEE Catalog
Number: CFP0994D; BMEI 2009 IEEE Catalog Number: CFP0993D). CISP’09-
BMEI’09 is technically co-sponsored by the IEEE Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society.
Tianjin is one of the four municipalities in China. It is a financial
and commercial center in North China and is known for its numerous
travel resources and rich history, such as the Huangyaguan Great Wall,
Dule Temple, Panshan Mountain and Food Street. It takes only 30 minutes
to travel between Tianjin and Beijing by high-speed train.
The registration fee of US$420 includes lunches, dinners, and banquet.
The previous CISP'09-BMEI'09 attracted over 2600 submissions from more
than 30 countries.
CISP'09-BMEI'09 aims to provide a high-level international forum for
scientists and researchers to present the state of the art of
multimedia, signal processing, biomedical engineering, and biomedical
For more information, visit the conference web page:
If you have any questions after visiting the conference web page,
please email the secretariat at firstname.lastname@example.org
Join us at this major event in historic Tianjin !!!
With best regards,
CISP'09-BMEI'09 Organizing Committee
P.S.: Kindly forward to your colleagues or students who may be
we have copied this information:
As you can see the following conferences are in the BLACK LIST:
BLACK LIST of Conferences and Journals
1. Any International Conference organized and any Journal issued IASTED. Many papers in the IASTED conferences were ridiculous caricatures, years ago before the MIT papers’ engine appeared. In 1987, as you remember two Professors from a small university in Japan, riduculed Dr. M. Hamza and IASTED. The anti-plagiarism.org tested the IASTED by sending to them 3 randomly generated talks and — unfortunately they have been accepted in IASTED Conferences. It is also well known that IASTED, Dr. Hamza, is a profit making company.
IASTED people (Dr. Hamza –the Chief, Dr. Uskov, Dr. Bourkas, Dr. Angel De Pobil) bomb us with thousand of emails (SPAM) each week.
See the links
a. IASTED for Profit Making -1
b. IASTED for Profit Making -2
c. IASTED for Profit Making -3 (Black List of Professors- IASTED Staff) d. IASTED for Profit Making -4
2. Any International Conference organized by WESSEX INSTITUTE of TECHNOLOGY that means any International Conference organized by “Prof. Carlos Brebbia”. The papers of Professor Carlos Brebbia have been checked from the Technical University of Vienna, Austria and they are fraud- papers. See the links below. For the terrific academic frauds and lies of “Prof. Carlos Brebbia”, see:
3. Any International Conference organized and any Journal issued by GESTS that means any International Conference organized by “Myungjin BAE”.
People from MIT have tested them also. Also Martin Ziegler have tested them. See this link. The anti-plagiarism.org tested also the GESTS Conferences by sending to Myungjin Bae two pseudo-papers from the MIT pseudo-papers’ generator http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen and Myungjin Bae has accepted each of them immediately with “warm congratulations”.
Totally: 6 different cases of false papers and they published all !!!
Myungjin BAE uses also some names like K.Y. Lee, H.S. Hong, J.A. Choi and J.H. Lee. We do not think that these names exist really. The only real name is Myungjin BAE. The names K.Y. Lee, H.S. Hong, J.A. Choi and J.H. Lee are simply nick-names of Myungjin BAE and of his GESTS. For the terrific academic frauds and lies of Myungjin BAE, i.e. “Prof. Bae”, see:
4. Any International Conference organized and any Journal issued by IPSI. That means any International Conference organized by “Prof. Veljko Milutinovic”. Veljiko Milutinovic has accepted 5 stupid papers from the MIT papers’ generator machine. 2 of them was sent by www.anti- plagiarism.org and other 3 by: Mathias Uslar, Vincenzo Della Mea, Teemu Hukkanen. See this link. The anti-plagiarism.org tested also the IPSI Conferences by sending to Veljko Milutinovic 2 pseudo-papers from the MIT generator for pseudo-papers http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen and Veljko Milutinovic accepted each of them (2 different cases of false papers). Totally for these fakes conferences we known that they have accepted 5 randomly generated papers from the MIT machine. For the terrific academic frauds and lies of “Prof. Veljko Milutinovic”, see:
5. Any International Conference organized and any Journal issued by the so-called “International Society of Computer Science” We have tested these sin guys by sending 3 pseudo-papers also to them.
They accepted after 1 (one) day and sent us immediately instructions of how to send them our money (registration) to Turkey. Another person that tested them was: Raul Soff .See this link. This company is located in Turkey, but they have made terrific frauds also and several universities in Europe, Asia and USA added them in a black list. Now, they changed the name of their scam to “International Society of Computer Science” and “International Journal of Computer Science” because as “Enformatika” they could not sell any longer. Be aware of the pseudo-conferences of the turkish company: Enformatika.
6. Any International Conference organized by the so called Academy of Science of Hamid R. Arabnia. That means any International Conference organized by “Hamid R. Arabnia”.
Hamid Arabnia organizes 28 conferences simultaneously without reviewers and send thousand of emails (spam) to people that start:
“Congratulations! Your papers have been accepted” without having sent any paper to him. Who check the quality of these conferences?
Hamid Arabnia was one of the first that checked for his fake papers from MIT papers’ engine. Of course, the test from the anti- plagiarism.org in the case of Hamid Arabnia was … positive. He accepted 2 stupid papers with big honors!
For the terrific academic frauds and lies of “Prof. Hamid R. Arabnia”, see:
Learn how does the IEEE accept papers from here
or read the following lines
Fake papers in many IEEE Conferences
This is an example:
It is time to learn how fake is the IEEE: IEEE = money driven society
Learn this story:
A paper titled "Towards the Simulation of E-Commerce" by Herbert Schlangemann
got accepted as a reviewed paper at the
"International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering"
and iswas for more than one month available in the IEEE Daya base:
IEEExplore. What a shame really for the IEEE!
Read the official Herbert Schlangemann Blog for details
Official review comment:
"This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication.
In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for
the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server
algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time.
The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze
them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently,
organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"
This is the truth
Later the IEEE replaced it
and later IEEE removed the bogus paper.
So, up to now more than 25 fake papers have been removed from IEEExplore
This is a shame for IEEE
Except WMSCI many fake papers appeared recently in several IEEE
conferences, because the IEEE grants its name and its logo to many local
organizers that without any review process
without reading any of the submitted papers
. It is being argued that such conferences only exist to make money out of
researchers that are looking for a simple way to publish their work
Suddenly new publishers appeared like IARIA, http://www.iaria.org
and HIGHSCI http://www.highsci.org. As seen from their web sites, IARIA
and HIGHSCI use the name of IEEE and the IEEE publishing services, thus
attracting numerous papers. Some people to test some conference go further and
sent the paper "A Statistical Method For Women That Can Help Our Sexual
Education" in the IEEE Conference organized by IARIA.
This paper receive automatical acceptance within a few hours with simultaneus
"command" of direct payment. Unfortunately this paper was not published because
the authors did not pay the registration fees. However the letter of acceptance
is published on the web and anybody can check it: