Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science?

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP)

This publisher will publish almost anything.

Scientific Research Publishing has published many articles by controversial researcher Mohamed El Naschie and his band of followers.

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) says it has offices in China and Southern California, and like many questionable open-access publishers, it is registered in Delaware (and I wonder if the firm reports its income to the IRS).

This publisher has been on my list for a long time, and I recently described a case in which a controversial article about the Fukushima nuclear fallout was published in one of its many journals.

M. El Naschie is listed as the sole author on at least twenty articles in SCIRP journals. In my opinion, they are all nonsense and pseudo-science. El Naschie has reportedly been blacklisted from arXive, prohibited from posting preprints there.

 

Claimed Discovery of the Nature of Dark Energy

SCIRP 2

Lots of dark energy, all right.

There are also many articles in SCIRP journals written by followers of El Naschie. These articles, like the one pictured here, typically report again on El Naschie’s findings. The one shown in the screenshot above reports on the “discovery” of the nature of dark energy. If such a discovery had truly been made, it would have been one of the major scientific discoveries of all time.

The nature of this published content is particularly surprising, given that H. Barry Zhou, the founder of Scientific Research Publishing, holds a Ph.D. in Space Plasma Physics from the University of Maryland at College Park. Why would someone with such credentials allow the publication of so many questionable articles claiming to have discovered the nature of dark energy and other such discoveries not accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists?

Dr. Zhou, are you proud of publishing scholarly articles that fall way outside mainstream science? Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) has become a scholarly vanity press, in my opinion.

I am aware that El Naschie was the editor-in-chief of an Elsevier journal in the past. However, scientists protested, and his editorship was ended. I think additional, similar action is needed in this case.

In conclusion, if you want your work to appear in journals from a scientific press that has published many of the questionable scientific works of Mohamed El Naschie and his followers, then Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is the publisher to select.

Appendix: I’ve included a list of some of Mohamed El Naschie’s articles published in SCIRP journals below.

25 Responses to Is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) Publishing Pseudo-Science?

  1. AlexH says:

    Mohamed El Naschie also have some solid work, not just self- and pay-to-published articles. He published with Pergamon Press, in Springer, de Gruyter and other Elsevier journals beside C, S. & F so he is not a complete fraud, just someone who blew an academic bubble around himself which is constantly being poked from the outside.

    • Ole, Ole! says:

      What academic credentials are needed to judge papers on the cosmos, space plasma physics, Einstein’s E = mc2, and dark energy? What exactly is pseudo-science?

  2. I am not an expert in physics, so I can not judge his articles. However, in my opinion, there is a possibility that Mohamed El Naschie has a thought beyond the thought of an ordinary scientist.

    We have learnt about Galileo Galilei, who was labelled as heresy, because his peers can not understand and can not follow his thought, but now his theory is widely accepted.

    So, who knows, the same will happen with Mohamed El Naschie, as his hypothesis may be proven to be true in the future, but before it happens, he will be bullied by everyone.

    • Quark says:

      Please not Galileo again ! It was inquisition which has “judged” him because of his work not lined up with religious beliefs, nothing to do with his “peer”. This is a plain sophistical comparison.

    • Dan Riley says:

      Galileo wasn’t persecuted because his peers didn’t understand him–he was persecuted because the Catholic Church found his conclusions uncomfortable, and he made some powerful political and theological (but not scientific!) enemies.

      Galileos are very rare–for every actual Galileo, there are thousands and thousands of inappropriate Galileo comparisons. This is one of them.

      For El Naschie to be shown to be correct, he would need to have a coherent theory capable of being tested. I am a physicist, and I have read several of his papers on relativity and dark matter. My professional judgement is that the papers I read fall in to the infamous “not even wrong” category–they are confused nonsense, not testable physical theories.

  3. Reblogged this on sainsfilteknologi and commented:
    Pseudo Science ?

  4. P Canning says:

    Open access publishing is the new curse for scholars and researchers. Some claim that open access publishing provides free access to knowledge but what is the use of knowledge which can kill people and which says Einstein was wrong? Kudos to Mr. Beall for exposing open access publishing for a fraud that it is.

    • Ole, Ole! says:

      Nowadays, to my knowledge and experience, all papers that are rejected by a Springer journal are now automatically rerouted to SpringerPlus, independent of the problems they contained, their weaknesses, or their faults (hypothetically possibly even duplications or plagiarism). Under such a circumstance, could one also not say that “This publisher will publish almost anything.”? Although, admittedly, once in the SpringerPlus programme, there does appear to be solid peer review.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      I don’t think our host is opposed to open-access publishing per se… but on combination with the publication-metric-driven employment policies of many universities, it creates a parasitical niche for mockademic journals that are pure vanity presses.

      • Ole, Ole! says:

        So, the key question is, how do we stop them? Shaming them publically is not working, transnational prosecutions are not viable, or even possible, and directors and CEOs are not (and cannot be) held accountable. So, how do we stop clear academic open access monstrosities from advancing when there is a massive “market” for them by a pool of scientists that doesn’t care about quality?

  5. […] traemos al blog un comentario a través de @Jeffrey_Beall (el de la lista de editoriales depredadoras) titulado “Is […]

  6. j. Carroll says:

    Here we go again a persistent and blistering attack is being launched against open access publishing and of course against no one other than Prof. Mohamed Salahuddin El Naschie. It is a déjà vu. How many times did we all see this before? I recall of course a major plagiarism case where Ord, Nottale, El Naschie Fractal space time theory was hijacked by major and heavy weight international players who didn’t really need to do that. But what can we say when human greed and large sums of prize money is involved. However why now? Here we can follow Sherlock Holmes’ eternal advise: “How many times did I tell you Watson that when you exclude all the impossible then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is what happened”. In addition to this valuable advise ask Agatha Christie and she will inform you that it is not the gardener who has done it but those who stand to benefit from the crime. For God’s sake do not think I am accusing the largest Publishing House in the world for being involved or for enticing such cruel attacks as if our world has nothing better to do other than promote or demote Elsevier McMillan and what have you. Truly truly nothing learned from past experience. What would Karl Buba say in his open society and its enemies about those who cannot sleep at night because they are losing their monopoly and their grip on the freedom of publishing. One should always ask himself when invited to hate somebody like it was systematically done with Einstein and many scientists before and after: “Why do they want me to hate this man?” With all the poverty, wars and misery on our planet, why Mr. What’s it the philanthropist is worried that Mohamed El Naschie published 20 papers in a dozen of open access journals? Is he covering his cost? Or is he not getting anything in return to keep him silent? I find the entire insinuated attack on Mohamed El Naschie and the excellent international open access publisher SCIRP despicable and a continuation of an old theme a boring repetition taking different forms but saying the same thing. One of Nietzsche’s favorite aphorisms was “I hate this man because he is much better than me”. Then Nietzsche continued and said: “Has anyone ever been so frank with himself?” J. Carroll

  7. you know very well that prof elnaschie has more than one thousand papers published in fifty different internathional journals to his credit.His h-index rose in the last 3 years from 48 to 62. he is structur engeneer and applied mechanics mann .physics is only a serious hoppy to him.

  8. Be hones-sir; u have been asked to defame Mohamed El Naschie in returne for mony and ……extra extra

  9. You should be ashamed of what you have been writing here.Elnaschie published last year alone 45 papers in 15 different journals of five different publishers. could you match him or are you work only the gossiebing and defamation industry

    • Svetlyo Savov says:

      With such an outstanding productivity (that’s almost a paper each week) did El Naschie even had time to read them all? Even less so to make sure that all statements in them are correct!?! It sounds more like article manufacturing than scientific research.

  10. shelama says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie

    “Mathematical physicist professor John C. Baez of the University of California at Riverside has called El Naschie’s work “undisciplined numerology filled with impressive buzzwords””

    “cosmologist Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute, testifying as an expert witness against El Naschie in a British court case, has strongly criticized the quality of El Naschie’s papers, based on criteria such as the occurrence of meaningless or obscure statements, statements that are wrong, and the lack of any substantial contribution of new knowledge to the field concerned.”

    “El Naschie disputed these allegations and sued Nature for libel. In July 2012 the case was dismissed, with the judge ruling that the article was “substantially true”, contained “honest comment” and was “the product of responsible journalism”. The judgement noted that El Naschie, who represented himself in court, had failed to provide any documentary evidence that his papers had been peer-reviewed.[11] Judge Victoria Sharp also found “reasonable and serious grounds” for suspecting that El Naschie used a range of false names to defend his editorial practice in communications with Nature, and described this behavior as “curious” and “bizarre”.”

    • Gary says:

      “Judge Victoria Sharp also found “reasonable and serious grounds” for suspecting that El Naschie used a range of false names to defend his editorial practice in communications with Nature, and described this behavior as “curious” and “bizarre”.

      I wonder if any of the people here are his (or his compatriots) sock puppets?

  11. Deyan says:

    This “scientific” article should convince in the contrary anyone who still thinks that SCIRP is a valid scientific publisher: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=48191
    Just a few citations from the article:
    “Having regard to the physiologic role of the heart within the functional organization of the body, the cardiac insufficiency is directly implicated and responsible for the entire physiopathogenesis of parenchymal organs diseases, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis.”
    “Physiotherapy is the most appropriate option for treating leukemia and diabetes mellitus…. Cardiovascular surgery is a valid alternative, if it is necessary, including the corrective heart surgery and heart transplantation. The bone marrow transplant and, respectively, chemotherapy or radiation therapy are scientifically inappropriate, ineffective to treat leukemia.”
    “There is no essential difference between diabetes 1 (T1DM) and diabetes 2 (T2DM), this consists only in the different stage of cardiac insufficiency, which unfortunately is a variable stage that may progresses to an advanced stage.”
    “Regarding HIV/AIDS, the causal factor of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is likewise represented by heart failure. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has no causative implication in AIDS. Besides, a virus may not produce such damages to the immune system from a scientific point of view.”
    “Having in view its etiological nature, the antiretroviral therapy (ART) and, respectively, the bone marrow transplant, are scientifically improper to cure AIDS. In a similar way to the examples before described, the physiotherapy or corrective heart surgery, including the heart transplantation are the most appropriate options for treating AIDS.”

  12. William Yerger says:

    Is Information Age Publishing a predator company? I’ve been asked to write a chapter on Bullying as I have published in that area.

  13. […] Henk Buck, a Dutch chemist who once claimed he could cure AIDS, is back, publishing a long explanation of why he was right all along in a journal by what Jeffrey Beall calls a possible predatory publisher. […]

  14. Myself says:

    Don’t worry, all the journals of the “climate changes caused by the CO2” mafia such as Nature, Nature Climate Changes, Science, AGU journals, Elsevier journals, Am. J of Met journals, etc, etc, that is, all those that compose and strongly promote the corresponding “science” basis publish, after peer-reviews, the concept that “more water evaporates as the atmosphere warms”. But this is totally wrong because the evaporation DECREASES as the air temperature increases. And this exists in any evaporation equation, but it is in indirect way, and this is why those researchers are not aware of the true science because they are totally empiricists. And such erroneous and absurd concept forms the dogmas or pillars of the so called global warming and “climate changes caused by the CO2”.
    This knowledge you did not like to hear and you will remove it because even unaware of the true science you protect the true predators of the true science.

  15. Pan says:

    Just my tuppence worth – as someone who’s worked on Yang-Mills theory for 10 years, his Yang-Mills photon article is like a jigsaw puzzle of facts with nothing holding it together. You could only think it made sense if you had literally no knowledge of the field. It looks like random facts copied from other people’s works, if I’m honest.

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

%d bloggers like this: