More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI

Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health

Conspiracy theory

I’ve written several blog posts documenting the Swiss / Chinese publisher MDPI’s practice of publishing junk science, articles that few, if any, legitimate publishers would accept and publish. Now the publisher has outdone itself and published a paper that is a monumental example of pseudo-science. The article’s author is J. Marvin Herndon.

Herndon’s paper is entitled, “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health,” and it’s published in MDPI’s pretend journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Herndon uses the article to claim that “tanker jets” are spraying coal-fly-ash in the atmosphere, a substance he claims is toxic. He reports, “Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes” (p. 12). He thinks that “Western governments/militaries” are behind the spraying, which aims to counter global warming, and he bemoans the toxic side-effects of the chemical application.

Herndon’s “evidence” of the aerial spraying includes a few pictures of clouds and contrails he shot in the skies above San Diego, where he lives. His descriptions and conclusions are highly implausible and will leave any reasonable person wondering how a supposedly peer-reviewed, scholarly journal could accept and publish such nonsense.

Clouds

Clouds or tankers spraying toxins?

Herndon tries to legitimize his paper and to appeal to environmentalists by placing his work within the context of Rachel Carson’s 1962 work Silent Spring. I think he’s really just trying to elevate himself as an environmental hero.

The publisher MDPI, which is justifiably included on my list of questionable publishers, does not sufficiently enforce demarcation, the line separating science and pseudo-science, in my opinion, and this crazy article provides additional evidence of that.

MDPI is a Salon des Refusés that accepts and publishes fringe and junk science most legitimate publishers will not touch. This article may in fact be an example of “pathological science.”

Someone paid the firm PR Newswire to issue a press release promoting the article. Also, the website thepeoplesvoice.org has picked up the story, announcing Herndon’s article with the headline “Ground-breaking, Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms Coal Fly Ash in Chemtrails.”

Other blogs reporting on Herndon’s paper include State of the Nation, Health Impact News, and Activist Post, among others.

Herndon, who is no Galileo, also has 35 preprints published in the preprint server arXiv, evidence he seeks out publishing venues without peer review (a preprint is the version of a paper before it’s submitted for peer review). The inclusion of Herndon’s work in arXiv devalues the entire database and the effort and resources devoted to it.

Publishing a paper in an MDPI journal only means that one is able to afford the author fee. It does not mean the paper represents valid, vetted science.

A PDF of the article is here: ijerph-12-09375

Hat tip: Dr. Marco Gerdol

79 Responses to More Pseudo-Science from Swiss / Chinese Publisher MDPI

  1. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health’s website is currently down.

    Could it be they’re removing the embarrassing paper?

    • Thank you. I’ve just added a link to the PDF of the article from my files (hosted on WordPress).

      • Shirley Ainsworth says:

        All the journals seem to be off line right now… Curioser and curioser

      • Dennis Ruez says:

        All pages seem to be up now – even the coal-fly-ash article.

      • danniel brennar says:

        Dear Dr. Beall,

        I have seen recently that Journal – “Sustainability” from MDPI, has an increasing impact factor, from ISI / T.Reuters.

        How is this possible that being indexed with impact factor and still on this predatory list?

        Shall I send my manuscript there or no?

        Thanks,

        Danniel Brennar (Ph.D. student)

      • I removed MDPI from my list in October, 2015.
        There are some publishers whose journals have impact factors that are on my list. The metric is not necessarily a mark of quality.
        Although MDPI is not on my list, I would encourage you to seek a stronger publisher for your work.
        MDPI chiefly serves as a place to publish manuscripts that were rejected from stronger publishers.

  2. Ahmad Hassanat says:

    This problem is much bigger than one person to tackle, Beall cannot follow up all this badness, a Universal organized body should start to do something about it.

    • Bernd says:

      The solution is to shift away from blacklisting the bad apples, but to assume that are journals are crap unless every issue contains several papers by well-respective scientists in the field. For instance, in physics there are maybe something like two dozen journals that are really relevant.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      There is some marvelous crankery there.
      He did arrange to publish his Earth’s-core-is-fission-reactor in the PNAS:
      http://www.nuclearplanet.com/pnas-1996.pdf

      • Harry Hab says:

        It’s a wonderful thing, PNAS – it passes for prestigious at the UK university where I work, but this is certainly not the first piece of wackiness I’ve seen!

      • Lynn says:

        I’ve had an experience with PNAS that suggests this journal is not what it is cracked up to be. The published an article full of errors–errors made in a way that was clearly biased. When this was pointed out to the editor by a female friend of mine, he responded with a gender-specific insult.

  3. OB1 says:

    Yes, agreed terrible paper, shame on MDPI. However, we published a paper in another journal of MDPI, the peer review was excellent and provided us some very helpful comments and criticisms that improved our paper. to this end, our work is not junk science.

    So NOT all of their journals are bogus and even this one made a mistake here but there are many excellent papers based on sound science in MDPI journals. Hope they remove it and that this journal does not repeat their mistake and other journals in MDPI have learned something. If it continues to happen then of course all the big names and little name people will be reluctant to publish there so they will do themselves in if they continue to make these publishing mistakes.

    • Right, except that I am sure the author of this paper would say the same thing.

      • OB1 says:

        I cannot argue with that and by no means am I defending MDPI – or being antagonistic with you. I am glad this forum exists to keep updated on these problems. However, I will defend my work and it is a bit upsetting when this happens to authors who have published in their journals, that’s all. Keep up the good work.

  4. Reblogged this on Blog do Pedlowski and commented:
    Interessante caso mostrado pelo professor Jeffrey Beall sobre uma revista de acesso aberto publicando pseudo-ciência!

  5. LeiaSunesson says:

    It seems like the MDPI website got back online. So I went there and checked the actual paper to witness pseudo-science and found some more. Overall the paper looks kinda bogus. Altho first of all I don’t think most qualified researchers will take things written under introduction as evidence (unless it’s an extended paper abstract), which is where Fig 1 is. It hasn’t been mentioned that the actual “evidence” is Fig 3 & 4 where the author basically compared the element composition of coal fly ash (published in an Elsevier journal in 2005) to some publicly available data from losangelesskywatch.org and rainwater data from San Diego (presumably collected by the author himself). From there he showed the chemical composition of US samples were highly similar, almost identical to that of European coal fly ash. The rest was the author’s hype-building and over-selling which I strongly dislike.

    Assuming the author didn’t fake the data (if he did then it’s an entirely different discussion about the ethics of scientists) his data comparison actually seem suggestive and deserves being brought to public. Altho if I were a responsible editor of some journal I’d send the manuscript back for major revision asking for better data references, subject implication etc. The way the author used small amount of data to make such a broad implication shows definitely signs of flawed scientific practice, but I am not sure that alone fit into the definition of pseudo-science. Furthermore I hope the reason Fig 3 & 4 weren’t previously mentioned in this forum is not a deliberate attempt to make the paper sound more pseudo-science than it already is, especially for those who may never bother to read it.

    PS I looked up Dr. Marco Gerdol to behold our brave hat tipper and I’m pleasantly surprised to find out that he works with immunology-related subjects in Italy. I’m always happy to see more of our fellow European researchers getting involved in environmental science as a hobby!

    • I’m afraid that I don’t find the data suggestive, let alone convincing. There is no control group. The author claims that there is coal fly ash in the rainwater on the basis of an element composition which is “similar” to coal fly ash. But similar compared to what? Maybe the similarity is just driven by the fact that the same elements occur in products of combustion from organic materials – whether that be coal ash, or car exhausts, industrial chimneys etc etc.

      Out of context, the similarity – based purely on eyeballing the bar-charts – is completely meaningless.

      If it could be shown that the rainwater is *more* similar to coal fly ash than to any other substance that could be present (control), that would be suggestive.

      • LeiaSunesson says:

        If I were an editor or reviewer I’d also ask to include some controls as you mentioned. We both agree the paper shouldn’t be published in the present format altho there might be ways for potential improvement. This paper definitely showcases bad science but since there are methods as you suggested to prove or falsify the hypothesis I don’t think it is strictly per definition pseudo-science (example: astrology). I guess the underlying assumption is most people would perhaps not expect that rainwater or HEPA-filtered air contain detectable amounts of inorganic components as materials from a lab (did you?). It somehow reminds me of the sting operation by Science against OA where they submitted around a fake paper with 60% acceptance rate, the result sounded more astonishing to people hoping for near-0% acceptance. In retrospect I think Science should’ve submitted the same paper to some subscription based journals as a control.

      • I’d be surprised if a sample of air or rain water contained zero inorganic compounds. We know that the atmosphere contains particulates (of which fly ash is one variety) from various sources.

    • Oswald H says:

      You don’t have to be an environmental scientist to rightly call “chemtrails” a hoax and conspiracy theory.

      Oh, and Herndon DID fake data:

    • Jtom says:

      How similar was the detected fly ash to the fly ash emitted by volcanoes? There are twenty-two active volcanoes (per volcanoes.org) as I type this, and California is adjacent to the ring of fire. I would be stunned if the atmospheric levels of it were undetectable (a result of our ability to detect extremely minute quantities, not necessarily a reflection of the quantity of it in the air).

  6. wkdawson says:

    By now, I am largely under the impression that this depends on the particular journal in MDPI.

    As guest editor of Entropy, I was under no pressure to make a positive decision. I rejected about half of them, and most of the others, I demanded major revisions before I agreed to publishing them.

    I notice that the name of the editor is listed on this document right here in plain site below the author’s name, affiliation and contact address. Most professional journals depend on the editor to make the final call. So if this is some pet project of the editor, then he (here definitely “he”) is first to be blamed.

    I really have no time right now to read the paper as “LeiaSunesson” (above) has raised some points. It is unprofessional to jump on the “internet shame wagon” before you have sat down and read the work yourself carefully and drawn professional conclusions. In particular, it would be good for the editor to be informed and speak for himself.

  7. Joro Paveto says:

    This is obviously not only a problem of the journal of MDPI. The same person published many papers on his fringe hypotheses about the Earth and planets cores and they are in PNAS, Proc Roy Soc, NATURE and a few other respected journals …
    I am unable to understand how he succeeded to publish all this (and a closer look in arxiv shows that some of the preprints are of papers in PNAS etc ….). The entire thing is too deep in the fringe …
    On the other hand the plate tectonics was in the same fringe, the solar wind, the cosmic particles etc. So far it is just not that easy to reject the fringe idea,
    About the contrails paper- obviously it is not the first paper on the topic of Mr. Herndon- there is another one in a journal called Current Science (indexed in SCIE, Scopus).
    So what is the reason to blame MDPI when many others before them (including Nature) has nothing against the theories of Herndon????

    • From Morocco says:

      Just reading the abstract, this paper should be rejected at editorial level.

      By googling “MDPI” “pseudoscience”, there is about 3 100 results!

      • wkdawson says:

        Using this same “measuring” scheme, I entered “nature.com pseudoscience” and received 797,000 hits. The first hits were more damning than MDPI too. Therefore, I do not think your measuring scheme is useful.

        Nevertheless, the whole notion of disposing of waste this way seems impractical as well as implausible. If “_they_” are going to all this trouble, why not pack it in old boxcars and dump it in the ocean? That seems easier to hide and less expensive. Presently, I would go with Neuroscience’ view: a more probable source of inorganic particles is volcanic ash. The article should have been very thorough about controls. Further doubts were raised in Jay Reynold’s post.

        I cannot understand why an editor would pass a work like this without at least demanding a major clean up. The only charitable thing I can find to say at this time is “anyone can be fooled”.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      a journal called Current Science (indexed in SCIE, Scopus).

      That comes up in the Wikipedia Talk discussion on whether Dr Herndon deserves his own Whackyweedia entry. The discussion is dominated by Herndon’s own claims that no-one has refuted his claims (not to his satisfaction, anyway), therefore they remain valid.
      Anyway, the “Current Science” paper is cited… after all, it is published by a Bangalore university which describes itself as “India’s finest institution in its field”, how much more prestigious could the journal be?

  8. Joro Paveto says:

    Also- regarding the inclusion of the papers of Mr. Herndon in arxiv: the comment that the inclusion of his preprints in arxiv is devaluating somehow arxiv: this is a misunderstanding of the functioning of arxiv. Arxiv moderators did what they usually do in the case of fringe paper- they moved the papers from geophysics to general physics (that is reserved mainly for fringe papers). As arxiv is just an arxiv there are no reasons to remove the preprints as this is not a journal. Even more- how can they remove papers when some of them are published? No one familiar enough will take arxiv preprint in general physics to seriously so what is the problem???

  9. Jay Reynolds says:

    Dear Sirs,
    I am part of a group of people who have been looking at this paper in detail. You might want to have a look at what has been found.
    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-articles-in-current-science-india-and-ijerph.t6456/

  10. Jay Reynolds says:

    It probably hasn’t because no one has brought it to attention yet, only being published a little more than two weeks ago. I happen to be in a position to do something about that. I am making a trip tomorrow on unrelated business which will pass through Jackson, Mississippi, where the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Dr. Paul B. Tchounwou is Associate Dean of Jackson State University. I will try to speak with him about it.

    I’m open to suggestions on the best way to do that, though it is very short notice.

  11. […] astrofisica ecc. ecc. con testi su arXiv che erano rimasti ignorati. Questa volta se n'è accorto Jeffrey Beall, il successo presso i fratelli Marcianò e altri invasati non si farà […]

  12. Kenji says:

    The guest-editor accepted this paper, so wouldn’t it make more sense to blame him/her?

    • DeanOfDC says:

      No, I don’t think it would. Once, maybe even twice that excuse could wash, but as Mr. Beall points out MDPI has a track record of publishing junk science papers which can in no way all be attributed to a single errant individual. I’ve seen little evidence of MDPI acknowledging or attempting to correct issues when they’ve been identified, nor have they ever claimed the defence you’re invoking on their behalf.

      Let’s be clear here, J. Marvin Herndon’s contribution is simply the latest example, not the extent, of the problem.

      Given their track record it must be the organisation that bears the responsibility, or “blame” if you prefer, for the failings of their representatives. They claim to have a strict “zero tolerance” publishing ethics policy and editors trained to enforce it, yet they published this paper despite numerous issues, including what appears to be a clear case of data falsification requiring little or no scientific insight to identify.

      • wkdawson says:

        But it _is_ the guest editor’s decision in this case.

        Evidently MDPI might do better in their selection of guest editors, but whatever the case, the decision to publish is finally the decision of the editor in charge.

      • anon says:

        re: the clear case of data falsification

        If you’re talking about the gif Oswald H. posted about the rainwater vs. leachate data — I agree, it’s pretty damning. You can’t blame MDPI for not catching it, though, since they’re not the ones that published it. The telltale figure is from a different Herndon publication

      • Kenji says:

        Thank you for your reply. However, are there any accurate figures which prove that MDPI has published relatively more ‘dodgy’ articles than other reputable publishers?

      • Leo says:

        Why did the MDPI editors not discover the data fabrication? First of all as “anon” mentioned the obviously fabricated data was not reported by MDPI at all but some other journal. Second, even for the responsible journals it’s often the reviewers, not the editor who are expected to (hopefully) go through the data to detect fabrication and sometimes they don’t find the half-obvious ones. It’s the same reason why Nature accepted those two papers from Haruko Obokata on her STAP-stem cells.

        In this case MDPI faces a problem: given the damning evidence of photoshopped datapoints in another publisher’s journal Herndon might go down one way or another, but MDPI (and Nature where he published previously) can only distance themselves from Herndon if they can prove he fabricated data in their papers as well (in science we shouldn’t do guilty-by-association). If they can’t find strong evidence they can’t retract the paper, and many commentators in this forum will take this as further proof to bash MDPI.

      • DeanOfDC says:

        To those saying that Herndon’s apparently fabricated data is not included in this paper, please check the appendices and note that “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India” by Herndon, J. M. has been used as a source for this paper, specifically the rainfall “fingerprint” which includes the questionable data.

        Whilst I accept it’s infeasible to expect editors or reviewers to fully investigate unrelated sources and references, one would hope that an author using their own work as a such would undergo increased scrutiny.

        The risks of not doing so seem obvious.

      • DeanOfDC says:

        @Kenji

        “Thank you for your reply. However, are there any accurate figures which prove that MDPI has published relatively more ‘dodgy’ articles than other reputable publishers?”

        I appreciate your response also.

        I’m certain a general discussion on the relative merits of different publishers could make for a wide ranging and interesting discourse, and accept there may well be even worse publishers out there. Still, I’m unsure gauging their comparative position vs other publishers is particularly relevant to a discussion of MDPI’s specific failings.

      • Leo says:

        It is still relevant to contrast and compare with other publishers, especially those considered to have set the standard. The ideal scenario would be if everybody runs a zero-tolerant policy towards bad publishing. But a dichotomous view of dividing publishers into ones who never published bogus papers versus those who ever “failed” will inevitably lead to comical effects since most (if not every) reputable journal will find themselves in the former category. Science had e.g. the arsenic bacteria paper, Nature published papers with fabricated data from Haruko Obokata as well as failed paper by Martin Nowak, and let’s not forget how much bullshit has appeared in PNAS via the fast-track backdoor “direct submission” model. Bottom line is since every publisher is run by people we could accept there is a certain baseline of mishappenings due to human-errors. From there we can check how far away the said publishers/journals deviates from the baseline and make judgement.

        I just checked the reference of the paper with the fabricated data by Herndon, J. M. in the MDPI paper, it’s reference #12 and cited rather inconspicuously in a comment. I think not detecting fabrication here could be considered a borderline case. It would be far more damning for MDPI if the repeatedly cited #10 were fake.

      • Who are you? Do you have a connection to MDPI?

      • Oswald H says:

        Leo, you can’t relativize away the obvious fact that the paper’s author states in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the abstract that he is a believer in the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory.

        How can this escape any decent editor?

        “Abstract: The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years.”

      • herr doktor bimler says:

        let’s not forget how much bullshit has appeared in PNAS via the fast-track backdoor “direct submission” model

        E.g. Herndon (1994), “Substructure of the inner core of the Earth”.

  13. Lee Rudolph says:

    The inclusion of Herndon’s work in arXiv devalues the entire database and the effort and resources devoted to it.

    Note that most of his papers in the arXiv are categorized as “General Physics”, abbreviated phys-gen. The analogous category for mathematics papers, “General Mathematics”, is abbreviated GM; the abbreviation is usually unabbreviated as “Garbage Mathematics”. Too bad physics didn’t set up its abbreviations like mathematics did.

    I am fairly sure, based on long years of experience on the newsgroup sci.math, that many more (human) resources would be expended keeping all cranks and frauds out of the arXiv than the minimal quantity need to simply wall them off in phys-gen, GM, etc. (But why astro doesn’t have an astro-gen is a mystery to me.)

  14. […] of Environmental Research and Public Health è la rivista di un predone indiano con indirizzo svizzero. Per le statistiche e i grafici herndoniani, si rimanda alla puntigliosa analisi di […]

  15. Franck Vazquez says:

    This response is from Dr. Franck Vazquez, Chief Scientific Officer of MDPI since February 2015.
    I became aware of the potential problems with this paper on August 25th and have been discussing since then with the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office and the author. We will make a decision on this manuscript very soon.

  16. nskeptic says:

    A note has been added to the paper’s page:

    “Note added by the Publisher: This paper attracts great attention and might be controversial. We are currently re-evaluating the paper, re-assessing the comments made by the three reviewers. Please take the conclusions of this paper with care until the re-evaluation is complete.”

  17. A note (an Expression of Concern) was recently added by MDPI. This note (see below) becomes visible when one clicks on the blue button with ‘author affiliation’ ( http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375 ).

    “Note added by the Publisher: This paper attracts great attention and might be controversial. We are currently re-evaluating the paper, re-assessing the comments made by the three reviewers. Please take the conclusions of this paper with care until the re-evaluation is complete.”

  18. DEUS ex MACHINA says:

    The article has been retracted today.

    Retraction note: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/pdf

  19. DEUS ex MACHINA says:

    Retraction note is actually on http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941

    Very mild comments from MDPI…

  20. Here, at journal Universe things are going rather differently…By considering only the manuscripts for which a decision has been reached, I have a 45% rejection rate (i.e. 9 rejections and 11 acceptances). There are currently 7 more manuscripts under consideration. Also citations are just coming, and there is an issue about how to consider citations received by papers before they were published, being just arXiv pre-prints.

  21. Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen says:

    It’s worth checking a couple of his references. For instance, No. 7 is a chemtrail conspiracy website. Chemtrail enthusiasts sometimes call me (I work for a newspaper) and try to get me to write about this bilge, and I just tell them that when they get something published in a journal I’ll listen. Now, sadly, they may be creating that platform and achieving the appearance of having scientific merit, because this looks (at least on the surface) like a real journal.

    • The paper has just been retracted. So in fact, this fiasco could help your case. Now you can tell them “I’ll listen when you publish in a scientific journal and it stands up to scrutiny over time.”

      • Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen says:

        I hope this works. Retractions don’t always help. Andrew Wakefield’s followers are still passing around his Lancet article, years after it was retracted. Publication is a foot in the door. Beyond that, these people don’t listen to evidence. In their world view they’re right, everyone else is against them, and that’s all they care about. Also they launch personal attacks like this one on me: http://bit.ly/1LPqGef

  22. herr doktor bimler says:

    Allow me to pimp out a blogpost-length response to Dr Herndon’s oeuvre:
    http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-pig-and-poke-cat-and-bag-and-thinking.html

  23. […] Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, wrote about the paper last week on his blog Scholarly Open Access, prior to the […]

  24. Kudus to publisher MDPI for their very quick decision to retract this faulty paper.

  25. […] Jeffrey Beall (webcite), creator of the Beall list for predatory open access journals, argues that this is merely the latest example of pseudoscience published by the journal in question. […]

  26. […] Via Retractionwatch.com, zie ook het blog van Jeffrey Beall […]

  27. […] Bell, un bibliothécaire à l’Université de Denver, Colorado, avait écrit sur l’article il y a quelques semaines sur son blog Scholarly Open Access, avant la […]

  28. […] hoax des chemtrails. Rien que cela. Certaines mauvaises langues auront tôt fait de remarquer que l’éditeur est déjà connu pour ses accointances avec les auteurs au profil scientifique contestable, n’hésitant pas à […]

  29. Ricardo Beas says:

    Thank you for uploading this. As it turns out, Dr. Herndon did make some typos in his paper, but he has issued a Public Notice to clarify (he was never given an opportunity to refute the complaints/accusations about his paper). Based on the corrections, the results do not change the outcome of his findings of fact and conclusions: We are being sprayed and one of the substances (maybe the base/vehicle substance) is Coal Fly Ash, a toxic hazardoud waste. Here is his explanation: http://socalskywatch.net/2015/09/26/public-notice-from-j-marvin-herndon-ph-d/

    The original paper has been revised to correct errors: http://nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf

    — SO FAR FROM CRITICS (example Mick West): SILENCE!!!

    Thanks again. Spread the Word, please.

    • Jay Reynolds says:

      Probably the worst part of the paper wasn’t even mentioned in the Editor’s retraction. The paper proceeds from two unsupported assertions,one that the lines Herndon sees could not be ordinary contrails because the atmosphere above San Diego is too warm and two that he is seeing are USAF tanker jets. Both of those premises are easily provable if he had bothered to go beyond a simple assertion and do some investigation. However the facts which would have been revealed, that both of his assertions were false, would have made the paper unnecessary.

      The dust has settled on Herndon’s paper and as it has since time began on earth there has and always will be the same elements in dust as there ever has been.

  30. As Special Issue Editor in METALS of MDPI, I have made very good experience with this published. Reviews are hard and to best modern standards. Highly reputed authors have contributed to the Issue and the Journal, continuously. Hence I have created with MDPI a new Journal – Quantum Beam Science – all the process has been handled very professional. MDPI’s Materials enjoys high impact factor. I must say, it is not the publisher – it is the Author’s fault – scandals happen, unfortunately, even with the world’s best publishers.

  31. […] Research and Public Health – altra rivista spennapolli – che l'aveva ritrattato dopo che Jeffrey Beall e altri ne avevano citato falsificazioni e […]

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: