New OA Publisher: the Council for Innovative Research

Council for Innovative Research

Innovative deception

Yesterday I added one of the worst scholarly publishers ever to my list, the Council for Innovative Research.

The only innovative thing about this dangerous publisher is the number of different ways it tries to fool people into thinking it’s a legitimate publisher. Here is a selection:

  • It uses an impressive-sounding name to trick people. It is not a council; it is just one of hundreds of new OA publishers from India that aim to rip-off researchers.
  • It launched with 36 new journals all at once. They are all broad in scope and the title of one is ungrammatical.
  • The publisher does not state its headquarters location on its ‘Contact us’ page; that is, it wants to hide its true location.
  • The publisher claims that some of its journals have impact factors. None have impact factors.
Council for Innovative Research

Don’t be fooled!

  • Like many predatory publishers, this one uses the Open Knowledge Project’s free Open Journal Systems software to manage its journals. The first listing on the editorial board for each is this: “Chief Editor, Council for Innovative Research http://www.cirworld.com, United States.” Thus the journal is faking an editorial presence in the US (and the editor’s name is not stated).
  • One of the main tabs at the top of the website is Payment Methods, and this is what the site is really all about — getting money from researchers.
  • Individuals and institutions can buy memberships, but there is no real benefit. The publisher states, “CIR membership enables the benefits for the CIR members. A certificate of membership will be provided to the members of CIR.”
  • To make its journals look successful, the publisher has lifted content from legitimate sources and reproduced it in its journals. One example is the article, “Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavior on large scale?”,  published in the Journal of Advances in Physics. This article is a pre-printed lifted from arXiv.
Council for Innovative Research three

They lifted this content from arXiv to make their journals look successful.

Next, the source:

arxiv

The source of the lifted content.

There are many additional reasons that make the so-called Council for Innovative Research a predatory publisher. The regular appearance of exploitative new publishers like this one is ongoing and perhaps accelerating.

All researchers be forewarned: do not submit any papers to this publisher’s journals.

Hat tip: Sandeep Singh

Appendix: List of Council for Innovative Research journals as of March 26, 2014:

  1. International Journal of Computer & Distributed Systems
  2. International Journal of Computers & Technology
  3. International Journal of Data & Network Security
  4. International Journal of Electronics & Data Communication
  5. International Journal of Management & Information Technology
  6. International Journal of Networking & Parallel Computing
  7. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology
  8. Journal of Advances in Agriculture
  9. Journal of Advances in Anthropology
  10. Journal of Advances in Archaeology
  11. Journal of Advances in Architecture & Planning
  12. Journal of Advances in Biology
  13. Journal of Advances in Biotechnology
  14. Journal of Advances in Botany
  15. Journal of Advances in Chemistry
  16. Journal of Advances in Environmental Sciences
  17. Journal of Advances in Geography
  18. Journal of Advances in Geology
  19. Journal of Advances in History
  20. Journal of Advances in Humanities
  21. Journal of Advances in Law
  22. Journal of Advances in Linguistics
  23. Journal of Advances in Mathematics
  24. Journal of Advances in Medicine
  25. Journal of Advances in Natural Sciences
  26. Journal of Advances in Nursing
  27. Journal of Advances in Pharmacy
  28. Journal of Advances in Philosophy
  29. Journal of Advances in Physical Education
  30. Journal of Advances in Physics
  31. Journal of Advances in Political Science
  32. Journal of Advances in Psychology
  33. Journal of Advances in Sociology
  34. Journal of Advances in Veterinary
  35. Journal of Advances in Zoology
  36. Journal of Social Science Research

 

31 Responses to New OA Publisher: the Council for Innovative Research

  1. Jeff Shrager says:

    Well, at least one thing is true, they are innovative! :-) Making up impact factors (why so low?), creating fake … well, fake pretty much everything, pre-populating their journals from arXiv, etc. Actually, I doubt that any of these is a technical innovation in the domain of predatory journals. Hmmmm. I’m beginning to get a little scared that as these folks evolve more and more innovative ways to do this, they will figure out how to do it in such a way that they evade your ability to find them. (Thus my idea from a while back about us building and selling them technology to create fake journals!) Hey …. I have another idea for them: Innovate a real editorial board and peer review process! I’ll bet that that manages to hide them from you very effectively! :-)

  2. SD says:

    Membership gives a 50% discount and fast track service on publication. The site is hosted in the U.S. with hostmonster in Utah. They are calculating the impact factor themselves based on the usual model: “The CIR impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current period citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two periods”.

    Yes, they are getting better at it, but I would ask, “what else are they to do?”

    Simple condemnation ignores the pressure that the academics in the developing world are under to publish and grossly underestimates the obstacles their educational system faces to doing it properly. I can show you hundreds, if not thousands, of dissertations that are not cited properly because there are few academics who know how to do it, much less teach it, and yet, they must go on running universities and employing professors.

    Developing means developing, It means learning and doing things poorly and learning some more. Everyday in India, I work with students and scholars who ask me how do we know what is a good article to read, how can we tell, who do we trust, students who have likely never seen research correctly done and researchers who have never received accurate explicit instruction in research writing. I don’t know about this publisher, but I know hundreds of people likely to publish with them and I know they are trying to learn how to do all this properly. They are trying to join the academic community. I, for one, consider it my duty to help them.

    I’m glad that this list exists and that it promotes firm standards. I hope we all continue to hold firm standards of academic integrity. But I also know that others who come here may want to be aware that the intentions behind such publications is not so simple as it may appear from the other side of the world.

    • Jeff Shrager says:

      I only half buy this. The scientific journal system is essentially free already for all authors. You can publish in a nonOA journal for free, in an OA one and pay on the front end, or plead inability to pay and most OA will take it for free. And we all, as reviewers, do that very important and difficult work pro-bono. Development can excuse inability to pay, not low quality work.

      • SD says:

        People are not born knowing how to do this stuff. They need access to education and resources for a long time and at a high level. The need teachers who also had access to those things and an educational system that values them. It’s not as simple as paying a fee. No excuses, just an awareness of the complexity of the problem of bringing access to more of the world and of the ground realities while it happens.

  3. Liam Mac Liam says:

    Thank you, SD – well said!

    • T-bone steak says:

      Dr. Cameron, you have quite critical remarks about the “establishment”, and an apparent fierce defense for sloppy quality. Is that the reason why you could only publish your “prime numbers” theories in another of Beall’s predatory publishers, Marsland Press?

      http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1102/009_15631ns1102_51_52.pdf

      In fact, if your theories were so true, so revolutionary, or so out-of-this-world, then why didn’t you publish them in Science, or Nature, rather than Science and Nature? A close examination of that paper reveals, in fact, a mountain of total garbled garbage. It makes no sense, even in its “primitive expression” (Abstract, line 1). The introduction is stupidly over-simplified, non-sensical and does not even introduce which ttheories in the literature you are challenging. You seem to be attacking the prime number 19, but the whole list of incomprehensive series reminds me more of that song “nineteen”, with the stutteting parts (“nananana-nineteen”) by Paul Hardcastle in 1985. You acknowledge Jesus Christ, which is so absolutely inappropriate for a scientific paper “Jesus Christ, by his grace to me, specially the Teaching of humility and clarity.” and then you thank two highly respected individuals who might not want to be thanked if they were to see the product of your efforts. Your references are TOTAL bogus, cannot be traced anywhere.

      In fact, WHO are you Vinoo Cameron? Is this a false alias or pseudonymn? Can we, the scientific community, contact Hope Research, Athens, Wisconsin, USA to verify your existence? In fact, you are listed as a medical doctor MD, but your theeories about prime numbers are most likely the first ever to be expressed by a medical doctor. Your identity and your papers are extremely worrisome, and let’s hope that you are not one of Bohannon’s nonsense papers gone astray…

      In fact, while looking about the background of your unreasonable attacks on Beall, I did find a whole web-site blog dedicated to you:

      http://americanloons.blogspot.jp/2013/05/554-vinoo-cameron.html

      And you were characterized as a ”Christian Physician Mathematician”.

      • Allison Jack says:

        Thanks so much for posting this article, I think Dr. Cameron’s work speaks for itself here. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. I’ve never seen a memorial mentioned in a scientific article…

        “Additionally we have changed the definition of the number and angle 19 for ever and a memorial will stand in Athens Wisconsin.”

        but the craziest part is that the memorial actually exists.

        http://wisconsinhistoricalmarkers.blogspot.com/2013/06/hope-research.html

        Wisconsin may want to re-evaluate its historical marker application procedures.

  4. TR says:

    SD – A few points to consider:

    1. What’s at question here is a predatory publisher exploiting seasoned and new investigators – from everywhere. I’m not sure how the “developing country” argument is relevant.

    2. True – publishing isn’t an inborn trait and must be learned. Best practices are pretty easily observable and learned, should one be interested in publishing with integrity.

    3. Academics the world over are under pressure to publish. We’re all in the same boat. Publishing in a predatory journal does real harm both to one’s career and to one’s field.

    • Vinoo Cameron says:

      ithi nk one mustle ave ones fearsbe hind . I had published ten papers in journals and they lay there. This journal l is printing a very difficult paper on the configuration of mass and energy and the mathematical definition of the curvature of space .had I tried to publish this work with the elite publishers , I wouldh ave had to eat much of thier one tract hash as they promote” What is the biggest Prime number in the world?. Science be free

      • Jeff Shrager says:

        No. Science be Science. Science is not free. Ideas are free, but ideas aren’t science. Science is the correct empirical testing of ideas. You can’t do it wrong (or not at all) and it still be science. So, no, science is far far from free.

      • T-bone steak says:

        Dr. Cameron, with that level of English, it is first hard to understand how you can be considered a native English speaker. And secondly, with that level of English, which Jeff Shrager boldly tried to decipher, it is no wonder that your paper would have been rejected upon submission.

  5. SD says:

    TR – I absolutely agree with you. There should be no publishing in predatory journals period. There should be no plagiarism period. There should be scientifically valid methodology period.

    The assumption that all publishers that appear predatory from the outside are, in fact, publishing only with that motivation is questioned. Sir, you are mistaken that best practices are “easily observable and learned.” When a population has no tradition of this type of knowledge and virtually no instructors who have such a tradition, it is not easy. It will take time and support.

    The problem here is that “predatory,” “easy,” and “pressure” are all relative terms. My only contention is that the depth and breadth of the problems faced by academics on this side of the planet is not fully understood by the academics on that side of the planet and their methods for attempting to address those problems cannot be judged, or changed, quite so simply.

  6. SD says:

    Regarding “To make its journals look successful, the publisher has lifted content from legitimate sources and reproduced it in its journals. One example is the article, “Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavior on large scale?..,” there appears to be some confusion. This was by far the most damning accusation made against this publication, so I felt it was worth investigating. I asked CIR if they allow articles to be published in two places and if the author gave them the article. They said that they do and he did. I then asked the author. I now have an email from the author, Dr. Piero Chiarelli, confirming that he gave this article to CIR for publication.

  7. Jeff Shrager says:

    Publishing in arXIv and then a major publisher, if the publisher accepts this, is not duplicate publication.

  8. SD says:

    No, I would not say that at all, but I believe you and Jeff Shrager have already clarified that this is not duplicate publication and the publisher, CIR, did say they allowed it when I asked them.

  9. Nils says:

    For the record, it is not the first article by Dr. Chiarelli in a predatory OA journal:

    http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx?journalid=128&doi=10.11648/j.ajpc.20130206.12

  10. Bill White says:

    There is incomprehensible fixation on the impact factor insomuch I am wondering which kind of Scientists we have!
    If scientists are not able to distinguish and recognize the flaws of the impact factor, how ordinary people could trust what “scientists” tell them?
    I see that a lot of the so-called scientists are obsessed by the idea of the impact factor! I would say that there is a sickness that should be called “The impact factor addiction”!
    It is incredible to which extent some people are focused on distorted measure! It is not surprising that science is going bad with such superficial behaviors from people, which are supposed to be objective and rigorous.
    how can I trust a scientist who sees in the “impact factor” a measure of quality? Such “scientists” do not deserve to be called as “scientists”.
    What amazing and crazy this obsession with the impact factor!
    Illness!

    • Your comments mirror those of a recently published article: “Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania” by Arturo Casadevall and Ferric C. Fang. It is available here.

      • Bill White says:

        Thanks Jeff!
        The authors of this paper seem answering the question posed in another paper about the same topic:
        “The disaster of the impact factor” where we can read the question:
        “…Why such a biased tool continues to exist in Science?…”:

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-014-9517-0

        but Casadevall and Fang do not cite the source paper!
        This is unethical!
        Other information is also overlapping with this paper without proper citation!

        Unethical and patronizing behavior from Casadevall and Fang?

  11. Les Biesecker says:

    Dear Mr. Beall,
    Today I received spam from “Herald Scholarly Open Access”. Is this the same scam as “Herald International Research Journals”?
    Les Biesecker

  12. Lewis White says:

    A few days ago, I received a spam from them, saying The Journal of Advances in Linguistics (JAL) has an Impact Factor of 1.013

    Actually, this new journal was just started in January 2014 (Yet, it has published 3 volumes!)

    It doesn’t have any impact factor.

    It’s really shameless to tell a lie and try to cheat others!
    It’s the worst journal I’ve ever seen!

    • Lewis White says:

      My understanding is that a journal usually publishes one volume in a year.
      So, why does JAL (The Journal of Advances in Linguistics) publishes 3 volumes in just 4 months?

      That’s because as a new journal started in January of 2014, it tries to look more established than it really is.

      And if you look at the articles published in this journal, you will find most papers are really of very poor, low quality.

    • Yongmei W says:

      The Journal of Advances in Linguistics (JAL) ISSN 2348-3024

      I received an email from them, too.

      At first, I thought it was a great journal to have Impact Factor 1.013

      I never thought they had lied!
      So, the impact factor is fake and made up by themselves!

      I never thought the journal was started in January this year because they are publishing Volume 3 now.

  13. Yongmei W says:

    (It’s strange that my post disappeared once)

    The Journal of Advances in Linguistics (JAL) ISSN 2348-3024

    I received an email from them, too.

    At first, I thought it was a great journal to have Impact Factor 1.013

    I never thought they had lied!
    So, the impact factor is fake and made up by themselves!

    I never thought the journal was started in January this year because they are publishing Volume 3 now.

  14. Norval Smith says:

    At least the journal has been clever enough to remove its archive. When I followed the link above I got:
    “Not Found
    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”
    But THEY are certainly still there – they sent me a mail today.
    PS. I don’t give a damn about impact factors anyway – I know where to send articles.

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,052 other followers

%d bloggers like this: