Bogus Iran-Based Journal Allows Up to 40% Plagiarism

Journal of Current Research in Science

Journal of unoriginal content.

The Journal of Current Research in Science (JCRS) is included on my list of questionable journals, and I strongly advise all honest researchers to avoid it. It allows up to 40% plagiarism in its articles and proclaims several completely fake impact factors. Surprisingly, a new scholarly index from a reputable firm has made the decision to include this journal in its coverage.

High Tolerance for Plagiarism

A prominent note at the top of the journal’s website says:

JCRS is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 40%.

40 percent plagiarism.jpg

You can publish a paper with up to 40% plagiarism in this Journal.

This means the journal will accept and publish papers with up to 40% unoriginal content, a highly-questionable practice that violates established scholarly publishing ethical norms.

Fake Impact Factors

The journal also displays false impact factors to make itself look more legitimate. It has made-up numbers from Global Impact Factor and Universal Impact Factor. These are counterfeit impact factor companies that sell their contrived metrics to predatory journals, metrics the journals use to attract papers.

Fake impact factors

Fake metrics, with values that increase each year.

Emerging Sources Citation Index

A dirty database?

The journal prominently displays the logo of the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new database from Thomson Reuters — the same company that calculates impact factors. I verified that the journal is included in this index.

ESCI is an attempt by Thomson Reuters to better compete with Scopus, which has a much broader coverage than Web of Science, Thomson Reuters’ main index.

If Emerging Sources Citation Index is including journals like the Journal of Current Research in Science — with its fake impact factors and high tolerance for plagiarism — then ESCI will have little value and will gain a reputation as a dirty database.

Non-Scientific Content

I also note the presence of out-of-scope content in the Journal of Current Research in Science, including, for example, the article “The Ratio of Islamic philosophy and religious thought.”

The article does not fall into the journal’s stated scope (current research in science) at all. Moreover, it, along with the journal’s other articles, has not been copyedited and contains numerous errors, such as “lunarcolander” instead of “lunar calendar.”


If this journal fits into Thomson Reuters’ idea of “emerging sources,” then I question the company’s competence in evaluating open-access journals. The journal misleads researchers with fake impact factors and permits a high level of plagiarism in its published articles.

Hat tip: Janusz Mierczynski

30 Responses to Bogus Iran-Based Journal Allows Up to 40% Plagiarism

  1. wimcrusio says:

    Whether 40% is a problem actually depends on how you get to that figure. I am editing a manuscript that was flagged as having over 50% similarity to other published sources. When I looked at the details, a huge chunk was the list of references, which of course it is unavoidable. The rest were innocuous duplications in the descriptions of methods and such (there’s only so many ways that certain methods can be described). There was no more than 10% overlap with any single other article. This was obviously a false positive. So 40% can be rather low (if references are included), but what I think is really wrong here is the arbitrary and absolute cutoff: over 40% and you’re out, whatever the reason. Because it can easily be the other way around: LESS than 40% overlap and still significant plagiarism. Plagiarism detecting programs are incredibly valuable, but a knowledgeable human editor needs to check the results in order to interpret correctly whether anything untoward is going on.

    As an aside, I am wondering about the inclusion criteria that Thomson Reuters is using for their ESCI database. New (emerging) journals are almost by definition difficult to assess.

    • ali javadi says:

      dear Mr Beall thank you for your concern. the statement was removed since meant 4 percent and not 40 percent.we do our best to publish original high quality pspers

    • Thomson Reuters should explain, among other things, also why one should pay for having a service blatantly worse than that provided, e.g., by the freely available SAO/NASA-ADS database. Indeed, apart from the fact that ADS coverage is much wider and accurate than ISI’s (at least in my field which is astronomy/astrophysics), it provides also for free a complete suite of many different bibliometric indexes returning a much more trustable picture of individual researchers.

    • The reference list ought to always be excluded in a plagiarism check. If not the results are invalid.

      But that aside, many plagiarized articles contain text copied from so many different sources that no single source accounts for >10%… this doesn’t mean they are false positives. It means they are prolific plagiarists.

  2. Ghazal says:

    ISI team has a legitimate logic on choosing journals on their list of journals. For instance, The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering is indexed in their core database. This journal has never published any granted article in its history. Its latest impact factor, 2014, is 0.06, which is negligible. At the same time, there are many legitimate journals in the same subject category with several granted articles, which has been declined being listed in their database. I am having difficulty on understanding what sort of policy they have in evaluating the journals. I am just wondering whether they could come and explain their rules and regulations in listing several bogus journals in their core database in the past. While they refuse to accept many specialized journals with good quality papers and relatively high pre-score of impact factor, they have several low quality journals in their Expanded Science Citation index list.
    My suggestion for ISI team is to look at the SJR numbers released by Scimago, my survey indicates that high quality journals are normally ranked 1 or 2 according to Scimago and they are also listed on ISI database. When ISI team refuses a Q1 journal and at the same, in the same subject category, they accept another Q4 journal or the one, which is still not listed on Scopus, it means they are making mistake.

  3. albez says:

    It’s available to our students via DOAJ and in our catalog. It’s getting increasingly more difficult to pick out the bad content that’s freely accessible. Students have been told that if it’s in the university library then its been vetted by the librarians. Our credibility is on the line. I’ve just asked my cataloging staff if there’s a way to suppress this record.

  4. Kobus says:

    I agree, my studies was based on food safety and traceability, it had 24 % similarity to other published sources. It really depend on your subject matter

  5. The Grim Reaper says:

    What, you don’t know what a lunarcolander is? This is a water bottle that one takes on trips to the moon. A highly scientific device.

    On a more serious note, though, how about this Springer book chapter with about the same level of self-plagiarism?

    Seems like they’re all trying to dive towards the bottom of the ladder.

  6. Jiang Chen says:

    A little try to find out the truth behind the fake journal

    Point 1:
    Owner of the Domain is hiding real identity
    Domain whois search result:
    Registrant Name: Domain ID Shield Service
    Registrant Organization: Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited
    Registrant Street: 5/F Hong Kong Trade Centre, 161-167 DesVoeux Road Central, Hong Kong

    Point 2
    The address of the journal is most probably fake :
    A journal from Iran should not ask its authors to pay in Indian bank.
    A journal from Iran should not have its managing editor from India.

    Point 3
    Chief editor is a Post Doctoral Fellow (see here: and here: Dr. Sunil Kumar Verma is very famous among low quality publishers.

    Point 4
    The real team behind this journal is from India. The team consists of DR. MANISH KUMAR and Dr. Deepmala Verma. You can find this particular team operating behind many such low quality publishers/journals like

    Facebook profile of Deepmala Verma is available here:
    From the profile it seems that Manish kumar and Deepmala Verma are husband and wife (as evident from the photographs of the link 1 mentioned above)

  7. Greg says:

    My name is Jonas. Actually, it is Jim. Sorry, I mean Kevin.

    “Welcome To
    International Journal of Advanced Science and Research.
    International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development is indexed, refereed and peer-reviewed journal … ”

  8. They appear to have removed the “40%” policy from their website now!

  9. They’ve now added a new policy to their homepage: “Papers with more than 20% of Plagiarism will REJECT.”

  10. Oh, never mind, the 20% message is gone now.

    Along with one of their papers which was retracted within 5 minutes of me e-mailing them evidence (if only other journals were so fast).

  11. Hemant B. says:

    Content of he Journal website is quite funny. Many grammatical mistakes and sentence framing errors. And, look… Global Impact Factor: 0.0.876

  12. Ahmad Ali says:

    I have published an article last year in “International Journal of Biosciences”. Kindly clarify the status of this journal. it is listed in the Zoological Records of TR…..

    • There is a journal entitled International Journal of Biosciences that is published by the publisher International Network for Natural Sciences (INNSPUB). This publisher is included on my list, and I recommend that researchers not submit papers to their five, broad journals.

  13. Rital Gajjar says:

    What about the journal “International journal of Advanced and Applied Science”. It is also covered under Emerging Source Citation Index.

    • I have this journal included on my list here, and I recommend that you not submit any papers to it.

      I recommend against using “Emerging sources” as a whitelist, as this database is full of junk journals.

  14. robotplayer says:

    I think you’r making assumptions, based on translation issues.

    The 40% plagiarism rate, is usually the trigger for journals to reject and ban authors – I genuinely think they mean that.

    Developing nations often don’t have the greatest websites. I don’t think you can make sweeping statements about the journal just because of that

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: