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:


or google: IEEE 120 SCIgen Papers

The IEEE SCIgen Papers were 85 two years ago:
Several Blogs (included 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!.

John Walz: , Reisman, Sorel" ,,,
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.



IEEE Bogus Papers: All science is organized around "journals"and "conferences"??

All science is organized around "journals"and "conferences".

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.

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 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.

Hindawi is a complete non-English bogus Commercial Company: Be aware of those academic criminals

For those unfamiliar with what it is: Hindawi is a complete non-English bogus Commercial Company. Be aware of those academic criminals. We have found on the web the following impressing comments for the fake and bogus Hindawi. These comments have been written by Dr. Kristensson:


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 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 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 for the Editorial Board, sample issue,
abstracts of recent issues and other details.

Recent Patents on Computer Science (CSENG) is indexed in Genamics
JournalSeek, Compendex,Scopus

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 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
your manuscript.

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)

We received an email from
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.

Warning signs
* 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.


What the hell is a "IARIA" anyway.

What the hell is a "IARIA" anyway. This is academic spam. It should be treated like any other kind of spam. I love this story. I am sick of unsolicited emails inviting me to conferences I might be (or usually am not) interested in going to.
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 )Mathias Uslar's paper was accepted to the IEEE IPSI-BG conference

Professor Genco G├╝lan 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:
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

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,, HIGHSCI and SRP 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:,


What a Shame really for the IEEE organizers!

I received much spam from the following conference
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!

Dear Colleague,

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

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