Another Award Scam? The International Research Promotion Council

International Research Promotion Council

Snake oil research.

You may receive an unexpected email from the International Research Promotion Council telling you that you’ve been nominated for the “Eminent Scientist of the Year Award.” I think it’s a scam.

The email will come from Ms. Sarika. S. Anil, writing for the chairperson, Dr. Alice Franklin (who is too busy to deal with this trivial stuff).

International Research Promotion Council

Don’t ask Alice.

Seeking clarification, I have emailed and telephoned Dr. Franklin, but she doesn’t reply.

The nomination letter states, “The award will be announced through an award special journal published exclusively for this purpose.” That journal is the irregular Recent Advances and Research Updates, published only when they have content and generally not made available to the public. I suspect that there is a hefty fee charged to the award winners to publish their work in the journal. I question the authenticity of this award and suspect that it’s a gimmick to draw attention to the “International Research Promotion Council” and to get money from the award winners and others.

The rules and regulations for the award indicate that there are multiple awards given out each year.

This outfit publishes one additional journal, the Austral-Asian Journal of Cancer. I think it’s a low quality journal, and I was easily able to find plagiarism in it.

I don’t see a legitimate need for an “International Research Promotion Council” as pretty much every university in the world is already promoting research. The council — like the Eminent Scientist of the Year Award — looks fake to me.

Hat tip: Dr. Elizabeth V. Arkema

19 Responses to Another Award Scam? The International Research Promotion Council

  1. Samir Hachani says:

    I have not yet received anything but if they send me such a message , I would know they are right !!!!!

  2. Toniva Ravo says:

    You are posing yourself as king of research world. Your recommendation has no value.

    • Dave Langers says:

      No value? The fact that you go through the trouble to reply suggests otherwise, Toniva.
      That notwithstanding, an argument based on authority alone should have zero value in science, I agree. That is why I am happy to see explanations in close to all of these blog posts why certain publishers are not recommended. Arguments are valuable. Still, anyone is free to weight them differently and disagree.
      For instance, I disagree that there is no legitimate need for research promotion. I do agree that an obscure award in a special journal is not helping much. I do not have an opinion about whether the motivation behind that e-mail are sincere: perhaps it is a scam, or perhaps this prize is hoped to become a little cousin to the Nobel prize?
      The ability to discuss is probably most valuable.

  3. Muhammad says:

    Please check the contact information:
    Editor-in-Chief: Nasir Ali Shamsi
    Editor: Dr. Neda Khan
    Address: Office No. 36, Waqas Centre, Mohd. Bin Qasim Road,
    Karachi-75400, Sindh, Pakistan.
    Phone: +92-300-243-3716

    Editor-in-Chief: Nasir Ali Shamsi is B.A passed form Karachi University Pakistan. He has a printing shop in Karachi, Pakistan. Now he has the editor-in-chief in many of the journal.

  4. Muhammad says:

    Nasir Ali Shamsi has also worked on labor visa in Singapore for two years. Now he is organizing conferences in Singapore. He is showing fake indexation information on website to get more registration.

    If you need more information we will provide it.

  5. Sudesh Kumar says:

    I was having a discussion about my comments in the previous post with some scholars and some interesting views were expressed. Let me share.

    In the previous post there was a discussion about country of origin of the publishers. Some believe that this information is important, whereas I believe that this information is irrelevant to the quality of the journal which is determined only by the publishing practices and content that is published in the journal. Giving the address may actually lower the quality and reach of the journal especially from underdeveloped and developing countries, as it influences the decisions to submit manuscripts and to serve on the editorial boards of journals from these countries. In fact presence or absence of this information can easily confine a journal in the shackles of “regional journal” and never let it grow and compete in the global arena.

    Based on the comments that were put forward I would like to take this a step forward and propose that if the information about country of origin is very important and is a deciding factor for the quality of the journal, than the polishers must also give the race, caste and creed of the owners along with their religion, political affiliations and holiday plans.

    This information is not given on any publisher’s website. Presence or absence and truthfulness of this information must also be considered while judging the quality journal.

    Won’t it be relevant and help in judging the quality of the journal to know (besides country of origin) whether:

    A journal from Western country is published by an American (white) or by an African-American (black)
    A journal from a Southeast-Asian country is published by a person from upper caste or lower caste.
    A journal from any country is published by a Catholic or a Protestant; Shia or Sunni?
    How about a journal published by a Christian, Muslim or a Jew?
    How about the political affiliations of the owners?
    Or their favorite holiday destinations? – A person holidaying in Switzerland twice a year will undoubtedly be more attractive than someone who has not gone on a holiday in years.

    Shall we change the criteria “…publisher hides or does not reveal its location”

    to read

    “…publisher hides or does not reveal its location; race, caste, creed, religion, political affiliations and holiday plans of its owners”?

    I think presence or absence of information about the country of origin must not be considered while judging the quality of the journal. The only things to consider are the publishing practices and content of the journal.

    • Dave Langers says:

      If your point is that a journal does not have to be a bad journal because it is based in e.g. India, then you are right. If your point is that using country of origin to disqualify journals is discriminatory in individual cases, then you are perhaps still right. But none of that prevents country of origin to be a useful indicator if experience shows that the quality of a journal correlates with the “uncloaked” country of origin. And it does seem to be the case that a lot of variance can be explained by that variable. So perhaps you should not see it as a criterion, but an indicator.
      You are welcome to argue that caste and holiday destinations are similar indicators; I don’t see much evidence beyond suggestion.

      PS: what is it with all these “thumbs-up for weird posts” here?

      • The Iron Chemist says:

        This site draws an… unusual crowd. Beall can’t even tell you what the weather is like outside his office without getting scores of thumbs-down. The cynic in me thinks that it’s due to shady publishers and other folks with an investment in shady publishing visiting the site and attempting to do damage control.

      • Sudesh Kumar says:

        My post was weird?

        My point is: Original of a journal/address of the journal on the website/presence or absence of the address on the website or rather ANYTHING related to the address must not be a criteria for judging the quality of the journal. A journal must be judged only on:
        i) the quality of the content it publishes, and
        ii) the processes it uses to qualify (accept/reject) manuscripts for publishing.

        See this:

      • Kumar:

        What predatory publisher are you associated with?

        Jeffrey Beall

      • Liam Mac Liam says:

        The EMBO editorial cited by Sudesh Kumar makes a valid point and supports his argument about location. Jeffrey, your ad-hominem response seems not too different to that of the anonymous contributors here who keep insisting you are shilling for Thomson-Reuters etc

      • In the context of the gold open-access model, where scholarly authors pay publishers who accept and publish their manuscripts, transparency is vital. This means that publishers using the gold open access model must be completely transparent to the authors — their customers.

        If they hide things like their headquarters location (which for many predatory publishers is an apartment), then it is fair to assume that they are also hiding other information that scholarly publishers conventionally provide.

        I will continue to use hiding or lying about headquarters location as a criterion for judging gold OA publishers. If they are hiding their publishing location, they are likely hiding other things as well. Scholarly authors, as paying customers, deserve complete honesty and transparency.

        PS: Liam, Kumar has been bullying me for a long time so your “ad-hominem” comment seems out of place. I will not be bullied by him or any other predatory publisher who scream at me because I include them on my list

      • AlexH says:

        Concerning “bullying”, you could require an institutional email address+confirmation email combo for commenting.

  6. AlexH says:

    “I think presence or absence of information about the country of origin must not be considered while judging the quality of the journal.”

    Somewhat agree. Not stating their location explicitly is not dishonesty. However, lying or being dishonest about anything (including the country of origin) should be considered while judging a publisher.

    I would change “…publisher hides or does not reveal its location” to “publisher intentionally mask or lie about its location”, but its not up to me.

  7. Sudesh Kumar says:

    “What predatory publisher are you associated with?”

    I think this is hitting below the belt.

    First – what makes you think that I am associated with any journal.

    Second – what makes you think I am associated with a “predatory journal”.

    Third – Till date I have observed that when anyone criticizes you, you always ask them – “What predatory publisher are you associated with?” – Why is this? Does anyone who criticizes you or your criteria associated with “predatory journal”? Is it not possible that any persons not associated with any journal may have a compelling argument which is not in line with your views?

    Last – going by your logic since you write so much against open access – what subscription based journal are you associated with?

    • I am currently not associated with any journal, but I did serve on the editorial board of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly in the past. Are you in Malaysia ? Will you share your website?

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

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: