OA Publisher Known for its Junk Science Has Chinese Language Imprint with 160 Journals

Hans Publishers Inc.

Be very careful

Hans Publishers Inc. (also HansPub or 汉斯) is the Chinese-language counterpart of Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), a highly-questionable publisher that has been on my list for many years, a publisher that does not hesitate to publish junk science provided the fee is paid.

HansPub is introducing open-access publishing to Chinese scholars and is using its “success” in the West as bait to get Chinese scholars to publish in its Chinese-language journals.

HansPub currently publishes 160 open-access journals, and most of them have a very broad scope. Here are some examples:

  • 应用物理 (Applied Physics)
  • 教育进展 (Advances in Education)
  • 护理学 (Nursing Science)
  • 艺术研究快报 (Art Research Letters)

The publisher charges 1600 yuan (about $260) per article for up to eight pages, and 100 yuan additional per page for longer articles.

I have published blog posts describing the pseudo-science that Scientific Research Publishing has happily accepted and published (see here and here), and the tradition of accepting anything as long as the fee is paid is apparently being followed by HansPub as well.

Astronomy and Astrophysics

Pay to publish

For example, this article, “冷核聚變堆和新現代物理學綜 (“Cold Fusion Reactors and New Modern Physics Review“) appears in the HansPub journal 天文与天体物 (Astronomy and Astrophysics). The article is dubious and reports on the author’s “progress” in achieving cold fusion.

With the help of Chinese-speaking colleagues and others, I have analyzed this publisher and have added it to my list.

I recommend to all Chinese scholars that they not submit their articles to this publisher of junk science. HansPub’s western counterpart, Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a known scholarly vanity press that will publish any article that looks scientific as long as the fee is paid.

In my opinion, over time, publishing scholarly articles in HansPub’s journals will hurt your career more than help it.

20 Responses to OA Publisher Known for its Junk Science Has Chinese Language Imprint with 160 Journals

  1. Bel_Air says:

    Earlier this year, I got review invitation from scirp. Told to myself – ok let’s see what happens. I got two papers to review to engineering journals, both papers were weak and I put “reject” to both. They weren’t published (I’ve just checked the journals) – so I’m not sure if it’s true that they publish everything (maybe it is for some of journals).

  2. Shanghai sling says:

    China, the world’s largest economy, apparently having already overtaken the US by many estimates. China, the most prolific nation in terms of scientific output. China, the nation with most likely the highest population of scientists, alongside the US and India. China, with its finger in many open access publishing pies, e.g. MDPI, CSSE, etc. that are highly prolific, and profitable.

    China, the least examined country when it comes to publishing ethics and misconduct. China, the least understood nation on the planet, due to language problems, allowing the Chinese literature and errors and problems within it, to be hidden from the world. China, the least reported nation on the Beall blog, even though there are some serious cases on Retraction Watch.

    The world would be much better off with Chinese scientists who are now willing to expose the real world of Chinese publishing for what it is, in English. This should include lists of duplications, papers that duplicate data in Chinese and English, and papers that may have plagiarized ideas from Western, English-speaking journals, translated into Chinese, and adopted into Chinese-language journals.

    The world has got to focus more on three BRICS countries right now:
    Brazil, China and India. As these are emerging and rapidly developing economies that are likely to accept less than ethical or transparent business models as part of the economy, and since Western journals are being flooded with science from precisely these three countries, much greater focus is required.

    • Dave Langers says:

      Or instead of expecting the Chinese publish in English, why not we learn Chinese or translate the stuff ourselves if we find it so important to understand their literature? Bit Anglocentric for us to demand anything from them, if you ask me.
      (Not that I wouldn’t like their English to improve, please make it so; but that is their call, not ours.)

      • Shanghai sling says:

        The world has already moved past the dscussion about the Anglocentric nature of science and science communication. Never in a million years will Chinese, Arabic, French, German or any other language be the language of science. And I’m not even Anglo-Saxonic, so it’s not like I’m in defense of the Anglo-Saxonic and Dutch company monopoly of traditional STM publishers. What I am saying is that precisely because these three economies are large, the literature, written in English, by Brazilian, Chinese and Indian scientists should be investigated, as should the scientific literature written in Portuguese, Chinese and Hindi, to examine the extent to which misconduct etc has occurred. A polyglot myself, trust me, it will take years – if not a lifetime – to master the Chinese characters, especially if the deep content of scientific papers is to be analyzed, so Dave, your rebuttal is not realistic. What is more realistic is to change the mind-set of Brazilian, Chinese, and Indian scientists to make them understand that the issues on the Beall blog and Retraction Watch, among others, are essential to be analyzed by scientists from their countries. If reform does not emerge from within these economies, then it certainly (or most likely) will not emerge from the outside.

      • Dave Langers says:

        “Never in a million years will Chinese, Arabic, French, German or any other language be the language of science”
        Forgive me, but that sounds like somewhat naively conservative wish-thinking to me (unless you mean that a million years from now we won’t have science anymore).
        Limiting myself to the few millennia of our own civilisation, a few centuries ago, Latin was the way to go; a good century ago, German and Russian. What makes you think we have now suddenly arrived at a status quo that will never change? You may not have to learn Chinese yourself, but some of your children likely will. And they will have the advantage over those who don’t.
        Whether we find that desirable or not is irrelevant.

      • sudesh Kumar says:

        @Shanghai sling
        your quote “the literature, written in English, by Brazilian, Chinese and Indian scientists should be investigated….to examine the extent to which misconduct etc has occurred..”

        …is offensive to my sensibilities. Why did you not include “English literature, written in English” to be investigated for misconduct as well?

      • Sudesh Kumar says:

        @Shanghai sling
        Since you specifically point out that the literature, written in English, by Brazilian, Chinese and Indian scientists should be investigated….to examine the extent to which misconduct etc has occurred….

        Does the above statement imply that till today when examining English literature for misconduct; the English literature by Brazilian, Chinese and Indian scientists has been ignored and no one has included it with English literature from European or American scientists to examine it critically? The statement is “has occurred” – the things done in past not an advice for the future.

        May be you feel that literature, written in English, by Brazilian, Chinese and Indian scientists is not worth examining with English literature from other nations or may be you feel they are more prone to misconduct.

        See from Retraction Watch website:

        Country / Retraction watch articles
        China 152
        India 92
        Brazil 30

        Other countries
        United States 513
        Germany 105
        Japan 107
        Uk 97
        Korea 50
        Australia 40
        Spain 38
        France 38

        How about focusing your attention on the countries in second group.

        Instead of blaming “large economies” it is more correct to say that literature from every country must be examined for misconduct. When it comes to research scientists from one country are not holier that from any other.

    • Shanghai sling says:

      Sudesh Kumar, you are right, academic misconduct needs to be examined in all countries. But, this story is about China and a Chinese OA publisher. China is a BRICS member, one of 5. As far as I can tell, misconduct from South Africa is minimal, because it exercises extremely rigorous ethical screening (so could thus be a model system), while Russian scientists feature weakly on the global stage, and their economy is in trouble, so the main focus should be on China, India and Brazil, for the cultural and linguistic reasons indicated. Indeed, countries like Japan and South Korea also deserve special attention because their national languages are not English, so the risks of duplicate publications, or plagiarism, for example, are greater. So, I am in no way suggesting that fewer countries should be examined. Simply that, within the context of this story at Beall’s blog, that the focus be on the three countries I indicated. Being Indian yourself, perhaps you could indicate what measures you have personally taken to contact the Indian authorities like the Ministry of Education, NAAS and others to alert of them to the corrupting factor caused by the never-ending pseudo-academic OA publishers emerging from India rather than trying to shift the blame and the focus?

  3. Evert Nijenhuizen says:

    It’s impressive that Mr. Beall also knows to find faults in a physics paper in Chinese.

  4. Bociari says:

    Hi, what about the “Athens Institute for Education and Research” ATINER?

  5. Alina says:

    Dear sir, what can you say about the AYER journal (www.ayeronline.com/index.php/sjd). Thank you.

  6. benjonson says:

    Dear sir, can u check also this journal “International journal of computer science engineering and applications. http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsea/index.html“. Thank you.

    • This journal is published by a company called AIRCC Publishing Corporation. I do have this publisher on my list here and recommend that you not submit your work to any of its journals and instead seek out a higher quality publisher.

  7. Dear Mr Bell, I know my next enquiry is not related to Hans Publishers Inc ;-) But could you please advise me about Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management (http://www.gjesrm.com/). Their invitation to submit paper in their journal just pop out of nowhere in my inbox. Thanking you in advance.

    • Thanks for letting me know about this journal. I have analyzed it and added it to my list. They promise a two-day turnaround time for peer reviews, among other significant weaknesses.

  8. Chin Huang says:

    Hi Dear Beall,

    I have came across this publishing company called SG Science Publishing Group (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/). Kindly please evaluate this publishing?

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: