Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers”

Shahaboddin Shamshirband (left) and Dalibor Petković.: clever guys with a plan.

Shahaboddin Shamshirband (left) and Dalibor Petković: clever guys with a plan.

Here are two researchers — one from Iran and currently working in Malaysia, and one based at Serbia’s University of Niš — who are either amazingly productive researchers, or some other scenario. Neither researcher appears to be exploiting the easy-acceptance offered by predatory journals. Is the whole scholarly publishing system falling apart?

Shahaboddin Shamshirband

Dr. Shamshirband is a senior lecturer at the Department of Computer Systems and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He apparently got his Ph.D. there in 2014. In 2008, he earned a masters degree at Iran’s Islamic Azad University.

His CV shows he has authored or co-authored 212 scholarly articles since 2011. I count 49 articles under his name in 2016, an average of about six each month so far for the year. Stand by for more. Before 2014, he had only four publications, so the bulk of his research (over 200 articles) has been published in the period 2014 to now. He reports his h-index as 14, an amazing value for a researcher who’s been publishing just a few years.

 

Dalibor Petković

Petković is a member of the mechanical engineering faculty at Serbia’s University of Niš. His scholarly publishing statistics are also questionably high. For example, his Google Scholar profile indicates he has an h-index of 18 and a total of 1364 citations since 2011. His LinkedIn page says he got his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Nis in 2012. I see at least 19 articles he’s published in 2016 so far, over two per month. In the four-year period from August, 2012 to the present, his published journal articles number 105 by my count, or 26 articles per year, one every two weeks.

 

Questionable articles

It appears that these authors work together to produce salami-sliced articles and then simultaneously submit the various versions to several journals. Much of the text matches from article to article, but with simultaneous submission, plagiarism-checking software can’t always catch the duplication. Or are the publishers even checking?

Following are three references, each followed by a screenshot of the first part of the corresponding article’s introduction. Note the recycled text. The remaining text in the articles — as well as some of the figures — matches similarly.

Dalibor Petković, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Nor Badrul Anuar, Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir, Nenad T. Pavlović & Shatirah Akib. (2014). Adaptive neuro-fuzzy prediction of modulation transfer function of optical lens system. Infrared Physics & Technology 65, p. 54–60. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2014.03.011

ddddd

The first introduction, in an Elsevier journal.

Dalibor Petković, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Hadi Saboohi, Tan Fong Ang, Nor Badrul Anuar, Zulkanain Abdul Rahman, Nenad T. Pavlović. (2014). Evaluation of modulation transfer function of optical lens system by support vector regression methodologies: A comparative study. Infrared Physics & Technology 65, p. 94–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2014.04.005

dddd

The second introduction, also in an Elsevier journal.

Dalibor Petković, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Nenad T. Pavlović, Nor Badrul Anuar, Laiha Mat Kiah. (2014). Modulation transfer function estimation of optical lens system by adaptive neuro-fuzzy methodology. Optics and Spectroscopy 117(1), p. 121-131. http://doi.org/10.1134/S0030400X14070042

ddd

The third introduction, in a Springer journal.

Analysis

It seems these researchers have developed a successful salami slicing system for getting lots of articles published quickly in supposedly good journals. The high number of authors on each paper arouses suspicion also: are these authorship spots being brokered? Is this entire operation part of a sophisticated, international citation cartel?

Universities tend to have a “hands off” policy towards their highly-productive faculty, even when the accelerated production is under a cloud of suspicion. Faculty publications in top-tier journals help lift university and program rankings, and few universities are willing to stop a practice that elevates their rankings.

Scholarly publishing is supposed to work on a “gentleman’s agreement” basis, but the influence of predatory publishers has poisoned much of research communication, and the articles listed here are evidence of that.

I ask that the publishers involved in these cases investigate whether these publications violate ethical standards and policies.

Hat tip: Anonymous

Appendix:

Additional examples of apparent salami slicing:

First set, Articles on wind turbines:

Support vector regression methodology for wind turbine reaction torque prediction with power-split hydrostatic continuous variable transmission Journal Name: Energy, Volume 67, 1 April 2014, Pages 623–630. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214001339

Wind turbine power coefficient estimation by soft computing methodologies: Comparative study, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 81, May 2014, Pages 520–526. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890414001745

Survey of the most influential parameters on the wind farm net present value (NPV) by adaptive neuro-fuzzy approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 57, May 2016, Pages 1270–1278. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115015580

 

Second set, Articles on robotic grippers:

Dalibor Petković, Amir Seyed Danesh, Mehdi Dadkhah, Negin Misaghian, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Erfan Zalnezhad, Nenad D. Pavlović, Adaptive control algorithm of flexible robotic gripper by extreme learning machine, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 37 (2016) 170–178, Received 14 September 2014 Received in revised form 28 July 2015 Accepted 7 September 2015 Available online 29 September 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.09.006

Dalibor Petković, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Almas Abbasi, Kourosh Kiani, Eiman Tamah Al-Shammari, Prediction of contact forces of underactuated finger by adaptive neuro fuzzy approach, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 64-65 (2015) 520–527, Article history: Received 25 September 2013 Received in revised form 10 March 2015 Accepted 13 March 2015 Available online 23 April 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.03.013

Petkovi , D., Shamshirband, S., Anuar, N. B., Sabri, A. Q. M., Rahman, Z. B. A., &  , N. D. (2015). Input Displacement Neuro-fuzzy Control and Object Recognition by Compliant Multi-fingered Passively Adaptive Robotic Gripper. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 1-11. Received: 4 March 2013 / Accepted: 9 January 2015 / Published online: 29 January 2015. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-015-0182-6

Dalibor Petković · Shahaboddin Shamshirband · Hadi Saboohi · Tan Fong Ang · Nor Badrul Anuar · Nenad D. Pavlović, Support vector regression methodology for prediction of input displacement of adaptive compliant robotic gripper, Appl Intell (2014) 41:887–896 DOI 10.1007/s10489-014-0574-5 Published online: 19 August 2014.  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0574-5

Dalibor Petković, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Javed Iqbal, Nor Badrul Anuar, Nenad D. Pavlović, Miss Laiha Mat Kiah, Adaptive neuro-fuzzy prediction of grasping object weight for passively compliant gripper, Applied Soft Computing 22 (2014) 424–431, Article history: Received 9 December 2012 Received in revised form 20 February 2014 Accepted 26 April 2014 Available online 5 May 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.04.037

Dalibor Petković,  Javed Iqbal, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Abdullah Gani,  Nenad D. Pavlovit, and Miss Laiha Mat Kiah. Kinetostatic Analysis of Passively Adaptive Robotic Finger with Distributed Compliance, Advances in Mechanical Engineering Received 25 September 2013; Accepted 7 December 2013; Published 2 January 2014. http://doi.org/10.1155/2014/145648

Petković, D; Pavlović, ND ; Shamshirband, S; Anuar, NB, Development of a new type of passively adaptive compliant gripper INDUSTRIAL ROBOT-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, Volume: 40 Issue: 6 Pages: 610-623, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IR-12-2012-452

Salami slicing.

Salami slicing, any way you spell it.

 

67 Responses to Two More Scholarly “Super Achievers”

  1. […] O Professor Jeffrey Beall, que costumeiramente traz análises e revelações sobre os efeitos da propagação exponencial de revistas predatórias sobre a qualidade das publicações científicas, acaba de produzir uma postagem lapidar sobre o irmão siamês do “Trash science“, o também pernicioso “Salami science” (Aqui!). […]

  2. Roger Carter says:

    It just goes to show that shoddy and incomplete editorial and peer review processes are not confined to open access publishers. Elsevier (and probably other) reputable academic publishers are just as prone to scammers if they are not rigorous enough in their processes.

  3. cjgberg says:

    Wait till the salami slicers discover the cyberknife….

  4. behalbiotech says:

    This year I faced problem of similar introduction and material & methods among few papers and then I inquired from editors if they will consider it as plagiarism or not. Surprisingly I was answered that Results & Discussion is more important and introduction can be ignored. Reply also indicates that plagiarism software are just in practice from from a year or two and still need proper care.
    What I personally analysed from their replies is that most of the editors or their team are not willing to care much and it will need readers to either know how to analyse a paper or raise concern on a common platform.

    • MC says:

      Sounds like you’re working with quality journals.

    • Mat Morgan says:

      I agree with behalbiotech regarding the much more importance of methodology, results and final outputs of the paper compared to the introduction which is only a warm up for the readers.

      As an academic professor, I believe this is the responsibility of editorial boards of such high level journals to check any issue regarding each paper before publication. I don’t want to advocate any one here, but editorial board could ask the authors to change introduction a bit more to improve the quality of the paper before final publication.

  5. Samwise Gamgee says:

    What do the publishers have to say about this?

  6. KK says:

    I have seen that the salami section mentioned as below:

    A) Salami publication is where papers cover the same population, methods, and question.

    Opinion: It seems the mentioned papers have different methodology as some of us from this weblog are not expert in methodology sections. We can refer to trend of soft computing or machine learning. For instance, Long time ago researchers developed Neural network and now they developed Extreme Learning Machine.

    Question: How the researcher use the novel methods and compare with their previous work?

    It is an editorial decision as to whether to publish or not: there is no ethical problem.

    • Jablan says:

      Many researchers develop novel methods and they could compare it with their previous results. I do not see what is wrong with it.

  7. Samwise Gamgee says:

    Dear KK and Jablan,

    I appreciate that you may be loyal to your co-author(s). While I commend your loyalty I question your scholarship. Just consider this two titles:

    Adaptive neuro-fuzzy prediction of modulation transfer function of optical lens system

    and

    Modulation Transfer Function Estimation of Optical Lens System by Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Methodology

    From the titles alone you can tell that the
    a) problem is on estimation /prediction of modulation transfer function
    b) domain is Optical Lens System
    c) methodology is neuro-fuzzy

    What is the difference here? What is the originality? What is the contribution? To put in layman terms what is the story the second article is telling that the first has not already told…

    That is just from the title only, now take a look at the papers, they have the same data, figures and tables, one even have a mistake of data taken from another subject matter. The results have been made to look like they are different but …

    I am just using 2 or 3 articles as examples here. There is a long list with this posting. Please see for yourself. But, I’m sure you have.

    Yes it is an Editorial decision, but Editors owe their existence to readers’ subscriptions. Selling journals with replicated materials is a form of hoodwinking readers. As a reader, I take offence that the Journal charged me for an article that has appeared in another Journal and which I have also paid for. i.e. I paid for the same story repeatedly! In the long run, I may withdraw my subscription! That is from the readers point of view.

    From the Editors’ point of view, subscriptions’ cancellation spells money lost, spells bad business! So Editors’ have to take this seriously! Editors’, if you are reading this, please note!

    From a scholarly point of view, scientific publication is so that authors can share their findings, hypothesis/theories, the lines of reasoning and evidence for the progress of science[1].

    If the same findings, hypothesis/theories, the lines of reasoning and evidence are repeated in several articles, where is the scientific progress? Changing the format of the results from one article to another does not constitute progress. The articles do not offer any new insights, science stagnates. The authors are advised to carry out other researches so their research can progress and they can contribute to the progress of scientific knowledge!

    BTW, using different standard methods to do one thing is not novel! The techniques used in these articles are standard machine learning techniques!

    Reference: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_15

    • Jablan says:

      I agree these are standard machine learning techniques but everybody can apply these methods. Nobody can forbid someone to apply it.

    • Jablan says:

      The main point is there are two types of papers, application papers and new methodology papers. Some journals accept application papers and some journals do not accept this kind of papers.

  8. Samwise Gamgee says:

    Jablan,

    I think you are missing the point here. Nobody is saying that the authors are forbidden from using a certain method, what we are saying is that, what the authors have done from one paper to another is merely repetitive work that does not contribute to scientific progress and has no place in scientific publication! It’s a waste of readers money, a waste of public funds, if the work is funded by some public organisation and a breach of COPE publication standards. We don’t need 10 articles to tell us yes, this technique have the ability to do that! Please educate yourself on publication and research ethics. Do not follow blindly what someone is asking you to do!

    I agree there are all kinds of journals, but sometimes journal editors inadvertently publish something that by common sense, they should not! That’s why they have retractions!

    Like this retracted paper:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816216302132

    Have a good day.

    • Jablan says:

      So the authors are collateral damage because of editors’ careless acceptances of these papers?

      • JS says:

        Although editors should have never accepted these studies, it is at the end of the day the authors’ responsibility not to publish repetitive work. Some of the studies mentioned above will be undoubtedly retracted and it will be leave a stain on the authors’ and the university’s record.

  9. Jablan says:

    By the way this paper was retracted because of some similarity. Not because of application of Machine Learning method.

  10. KK says:

    Dear Samwise,

    For this retracted paper, it seems the editor and his team are responsible to double check in round of revision using ithenic software. My opinion is that the editor has lack of management and he/she does not care about the dateline for author.

    You can see that the journal received the paper in 25 August 2015 and they gave acceptance in June 2016 ( around 1 year), so it is clear that this journal is slow and they do not care about scholar’s time and life and fund. Therefore, it is obvious that during this 1 year , the same methods like ANFIS will use by them for another applications. As I understood from your view, you would like to say that ANFIS can not apply until the current anfis version ( under review) will be accepted. Then you return to SALAMI PAPER.

    • JD says:

      Just found out that both “super achievers” google scholar page are now GONE. And based on Linked, one of them eventually is a director of a company in Malaysia (https://my.linkedin.com/in/shamshirband). In the page, it is stated “I am Director of the Shahab Pardaz Mazand Lab (SPMLab) – an industry and government-supported collaboration of students, postdocs, and faculty who specialize in data management, statistical machine learning and other important topics necessary for making sense of vast amounts of varied and unruly data.

      Email:
      shahab1396@gmail.com
      shamshirband@um.edu.my

    • Samwise says:

      KK,

      Please read again what I said! If you are a PhD candidate, you need to understand published work, in order for you to write a good thematic literature review! It seems that both you and Jablan have difficulty understanding what I wrote! It’s really quite plain and easy! Don’t twist and turn my words!

  11. JD says:

    Apparently based on this blog (http://etikadium.blogspot.my/), it seems that University of Malaya are aware of the situation reported here? Also, some important facts found.

    1) Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_Malaysia) stated that University of Malaya is the most prestigious university in Malaysia (rank 133 based on QS2016). If so, such incidents should have been taken seriously if it is truth? And how many of these “salami” papers are reported in the QS2016 ranking? Will QS re-rank?

    2) According to his CV, the “super achiever” from University of Malaya was awarded the University of Malaya Excellence Awards (Phd Candidate With Highest Impact Publications), University of Malaya, 2015, (University). It seems that the university is supportive and indirectly promoting this kind of research conducts?

    3) Some of the co-authors listed above are holding the top position in the Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya. For example, according to the CV (https://umexpert.um.edu.my/badrul.html), Anuar N.B or Nor Badrul Anuar is the current Deputy Dean Of Research And Development, Pejabat Dekan, Faculty Of Computer Science And Information Technology Dean’s Office, Faculty Of Computer Science & Information Technology, 2016-08-01 – 2017-07-31. If we look at the date and I understand it correctly, the appointment was made just a month ago (2016-08-01). Again, as to Jeffrey mentioned, it seems that the university is having a “hands-off” policy to its highly productive faculty to maintain the university ranking. The position of Deputy Dean of Research and Development is so important to set the direction of the faculty and university, and is this appointment set the direction of the university staffs to publish more in “salami” papers?

  12. Dickson says:

    Hmmm, this is getting interesting! With a number of High Stake Players! I noticed that another co-author Gani, A or Abdullah Gani is the Dean of the Faculty where, Anuar N.B. and Shamshirband, S works (https://umexpert.um.edu.my/abdullah)

  13. Sir
    may you tell me pleaz about the following journal
    and if it contain real impact factor
    African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

    • I don’t know if this journal has an impact factor or not. I recommend you not send any papers to this journal or to the others from this publisher, Academic Journals. I recommend you find a better publisher for your work.

  14. Well, i see these articles as Salami slice. University of Ibadan always check on this and will summate articles with similar title as one. Talkless of going into the content and having similar into, method, there won.t be any promotion.

  15. Well, i published good articles there but they are no longer counted for me for promotion by my university. The problem with the publisher is thier non-relationship with a university or a soiety. Presently they publish anything that make one regret ever published with them.

  16. scholaybeall says:

    Let’s talk duplication for gesture recognition – An analysis of 2 papers

    1) Haitham Badi • Sabah Hasan Hussein, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Feature extraction and ML techniques for static gesture recognition, Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:733–741.

    2) Gesture Feature Extraction for Static Gesture Recognition, Haitham Sabah Hasan · Sameem Binti Abdul Kareem, Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3349–3366.

    3) Hasan, H., Sameem Abdul Kareem. (2014). Static hand gesture recognition using neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 147-181.

    It is another duplication or salami paper.

    These papers are similar in all sections. Abstract, Introduction, Proposed methods, result and discussion.

    • JE Nurs says:

      It seems that there is war between two groups. At the first glance, the king of Artificial Intelligence ( Saeem ) with this link

      https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_hDqFSUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

      reported some papers to editors in order to urge them for salami papers. Now, another history is that the huge number of researchers attacked Sameem’s paper with duplication.

      Duplication is serious issue that Prof. Saeem needs to clarify it?

      • rt says:

        It seems Prof. Sameem has many identical papers. I urge journals to investigate all her papers since it is clear that she duplicated many papers. I am surprised when I saw two almost identical papers in the same journal published by Prof. Sameem. I will contact the journal office to explain me it how it is possible to publish identical papers in same journal.

      • Sameem says:

        I did not report anything to anyone. I have clarified about my papers.

  17. Bernard G says:

    Dear Beall,

    Could you analyse there papers?

    1) Haitham Badi • Sabah Hasan Hussein, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Feature extraction and ML techniques for static gesture recognition, Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:733–741.

    2) Gesture Feature Extraction for Static Gesture Recognition, Haitham Sabah Hasan · Sameem Binti Abdul Kareem, Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3349–3366.

    3) Hasan, H., Sameem Abdul Kareem. (2014). Static hand gesture recognition using neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 147-181.

    It is another duplication or salami paper.

    These papers are similar in all sections. Abstract, Introduction, Proposed methods, result and discussion.

    • My library does not provide access to the second one (number 2), so I cannot see it, but I will have a look at the other two.

      • Ethical issues and practical solutions. says:

        Dear Beall,

        Did you report to editor for Sameem’s duplication? Did you analyse it?

        1) Haitham Badi • Sabah Hasan Hussein, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Feature extraction and ML techniques for static gesture recognition, Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:733–741.

        2) Gesture Feature Extraction for Static Gesture Recognition, Haitham Sabah Hasan · Sameem Binti Abdul Kareem, Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3349–3366.

        3) Hasan, H., Sameem Abdul Kareem. (2014). Static hand gesture recognition using neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 147-181.

      • t says:

        Dear Ethical issues and practical solutions,

        You should contact the journals directly and report them about the duplicated papers. It is shameful that the three identical papers were published. The journals should ban Sameem Abdul Kareem and her group.

  18. Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem says:

    Dear Bernard G,

    These papers were published by my student Haitham. At first glance, they do appear to be similar. How careless of me.Thank you for pointing this out to me. I’m overseas at the moment and am not able to properly analyse these papers. I will certainly do so when I get back to Malaysia.

    • Bernard G says:

      Dear Sameem,

      This is just example of duplication and your works are not salami paper.

      Could you explain these papers?

      I came across the paper deeply and found that these two papers are published in 2014 and the same paper published in 2016. Note that: in 2016, the same paper recycled.

      How do you want to clarify it? I am ready to explain the technical aspects of these papers. I have analysed it.

      If you doubt about duplication, I kindly invite those researchers who are experts in AI field.

      Paper 2014:

      An efficient semi-supervised feed forward neural network clustering

      Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem et al ( Sisters)

      Articial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing / FirstView Article / December 2014, pp 1 – 15
      DOI: 10.1017/S0890060414000675, Published online: 02 December 2014

      Abstract:

      We developed an efficient semisupervised feedforward neural network clustering model with one epoch training and data
      dimensionality reduction ability to solve the problems of low training speed, accuracy, and high memory complexity of
      clustering. During training, a codebook of nonrandom weights is learned through input data directly. A standard weight
      vector is extracted from the codebook, and the exclusive threshold of each input instance is calculated based on the standard weight vector. The input instances are clustered based on their exclusive thresholds. The model assigns a class label to each input instance through the training set. The class label of each unlabeled input instance is predicted by considering a linear activation function and the exclusive threshold. Finally, the number of clusters and the density of each cluster are updated.
      The accuracy of the proposed model was measured through the number of clusters and the quantity of correctly classified
      nodes, which was 99.85%, 100%, and 99.91% of the Breast Cancer, Iris, and Spam data sets from the University of California at Irvine Machine Learning Repository, respectively, and the superior F measure results between 98.29% and 100%
      accuracies for the breast cancer data set from the University of Malaya Medical Center to predict the survival time.

      Keywords: Artificial Neural Network; Feedforward Neural Network; Nonrandom Weight; Semiclustering; Supervised
      and Unsupervised Learning.

      Paper 2016:

      A dynamic semisupervised feedforward neural
      network clustering

      Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem et al ( Sisters)

      Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, page 1 of 25, 2016.
      # Cambridge University Press 2016 0890-0604/16
      doi:10.1017/S0890060416000160

      Abstract:

      An efficient single-layer dynamic semisupervised feedforward neural network clustering method with one epoch training,
      data dimensionality reduction, and controlling noise data abilities is discussed to overcome the problems of high training
      time, low accuracy, and high memory complexity of clustering. Dynamically after the entrance of each new online input
      datum, the code book of nonrandom weights and other important information about online data as essentially important
      information are updated and stored in the memory. Consequently, the exclusive threshold of the data is calculated based on the essentially important information, and the data is clustered. Then, the network of clusters is updated. After learning, the model assigns a class label to the unlabeled data by considering a linear activation function and the exclusive threshold. Finally, the number of clusters and density of each cluster are updated. The accuracy of the proposed model is measured through the number of clusters, the quantity of correctly classified nodes, and F-measure. Briefly, in order to predict the survival time, the F-measure is 100% of the Iris, Musk2, Arcene, and Yeast data sets and 99.96% of the Spambase data set from the University of California at Irvine Machine Learning Repository; and the superior F-measure results in between 98.14% and 100% accuracies for the breast cancer data set from the University of Malaya Medical Center.We show that the proposed method is applicable in different areas, such as the prediction of the hydrate formation temperature with high accuracy.

    • KK says:

      Dear Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem

      I am surprised with your answer about these publications. It seems you allowed to your students to publish without your participation. Is it ethic to add someone in some papers without his or her participation in these papers? I know they are your students but based on the main ethical principle all authors should have some participation in papers. Furthermore I listed your publication and I noticed that many of your papers were duplication.

      https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=_hDqFSUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

      I think journal editors or someone else should investigate your papers since it seems many of your papers were duplication in order to increase your citations.

      • Sameem Abdul Kareem says:

        Dear Bernard G and KK,

        Thank you both for the interest in my work. I am flattered, to say the least. I think you may have misunderstood me, the papers were written as part of my PhD students’ work, hence they are the first author. As their supervisor, nothing goes to the publishers without my contribution. My contribution comes in many ways. Drop by my office and we can have a little chat about this. I believe you are both here in KL.

        BTW, now that I am back in KL and have access to my papers and notes, I can answer your question better. You need to read the full papers and not just the abstracts. If you read the full papers the differences in the papers are obvious as the works built on the previous works carried out and are suitably cited. The papers reflect the progress of the research carried out. Again, drop by my office and I will take the time to explain to you in simple English.

      • Donald Griffiths says:

        Interesting job Prof. Sameem, Well done.

        You may see our published papers.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18755331

      • KK says:

        Dear Prof. Sameem Abdul Kareem

        I read your papers and I noticed the duplication so you do not need to explain me anything. You need to explain it to journal editors when they asked you about the duplication.

        Best regards

  19. CSC says:

    Dear Beall,

    I am a new image processing researcher from Europe. So, It is not clear for me about duplication and salami.

    My question is: Can we publish our conference paper in journal? If yes, it is like duplication? Cause the duplication uses same methods, same experiments, same structure.

    Please advise it.

    Could you analyse the papers?

    Is it possible to publish in chapter book, then publish in non-ISI journal and finally published in ISI with impact factor as you can see below:

    Paper 1:

    Chapter
    Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems
    Volume 4251 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp 639-646

    Human Arm-Motion Classification Using Qualitative Normalised Templates (Published in 2006)

    This paper proposes an approach to classify human arm motion using qualitative normalized templates. The proposed method consists of construction of human arm model, qualitative representation of prior knowledge of human arm motion and a search algorithm. First, convention robotic model is employed to build up a generic vision model for a human arm; Secondly, qualitative robotic model in [1] is used to construct qualitative normalised templates; Finally a search algorithm is provided to match the vision model with the templates in image frames. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the proposed method is effective for the classification of human-arm motion. Future work will focus on extending the proposed method to the classification of a full human-body motion.

    Paper 2:
    J Intell Robot Syst (2007) 48:79–95 DOI 10.1007/s10846-006-9100-2

    Recognition of Human Motion From Qualitative Normalised Templates (2007)

    Abstract This paper proposes a Qualitative Normalised Templates (QNTs) framework for solving the human motion classification problem. In contrast to other human motion classification methods which usually include a human model, prior knowledge on human motion and a matching algorithm, we replace the matching
    algorithm (e.g. template matching) with the proposed QNTs. The human motion is modelled by the time-varying joint angles and link lengths of an articulated human model. The ability tomanage the trade-offs between model complexity and computational
    cost plays a crucial role in the performance of human motion classification. The QNTs is developed to categorise complex human motion into sets of fuzzy qualitative angles and positions in quantity space. Classification of the human motion is done by
    comparing the QNTs to the parameters learned from numerical motion tracking. Experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of our proposed method when classifying simple human motions, e.g. running and walking.

    Key words human motion classification • pattern recognition

    Paper 3:

    International Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems
    Volume 11 Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 207-217, IOS Press Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands

    Adapting robot kinematics for human-arm motion recognition (2007)

    This paper presents a novel method to the analysis of human-arm motion, in particular improving the efficiency of conventional motion recognition algorithms. Contrary to the prior art methods, this research develops a framework for human-arm motion recognition where qualitative normalised templates (QNTs) is proposed to replace the conventional approaches. First of all, the conventional robotic model has been employed to build a generic vision model for a human-arm, that is we utilise the robot kinematics to construct a stick model. Secondly, the qualitative robotic model is adopted to learn and construct the QNTs where human-arm motion is termed as, whose execution is consistent and could be easily characterised by a definite space-time trajectory in configuration space. Finally, classification of the human-arm motion is achieved by comparing the QNTs to the parameters learnt with particle filter based motion tracking algorithm. Experimental evaluation has demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method in human-arm motion classification, and our future work is focused on extending the proposed method to recognise complex human motion, e.g. walking and running.

    • Nadim says:

      Regarding your question: Can we publish our conference paper in journal?

      Once upon a time, this seems to be common practice – publish a paper in a conference proceeding, and later a more detailed version in a journal.

      BUT journals have become strict about this practice. I noticed that many journals now impose a condition that the paper you submit to them must not already be published anywhere else.

      So be careful and check with the journal regarding this policy. An editor might ask you to also submit your conference paper to compare to the paper you submit to the journal.

      • James Norman says:

        Dear Nadim,

        Are you kidding me? Common practice for duplication?

      • KMT says:

        These 3 papers were published about 10 years ago, while knowledge base system and CI were still not so popular. Impact factor for IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy systems (TFS) was only 1 to 2 that time, and now about 6 to 8. We may need to understand the practice and situations for the relevant technical societies on that time, before making a judgement. I think doing so (publish a paper (or even a series of papers) in a conference proceeding, and later a more detailed version in a journal (some time called archival journal)) was somehow “acceptable” 10 years ago, in the community, but of cause, not 100% text to text similarity, and with inclusion of additional research results.

      • Bernard G says:

        Still we have ethical issue for Human Motion From Qualitative Normalised Templates. I will give you an example, long time ago as Jeffery beall mentioned, the academic journals were added in black list in thompson and most researchers published many papers. Therefore, you ( KMT ) can not say that our papers are good at that time ( 10 years ago).

  20. Cope- Duplication says:

    Nice history

    Sound like Dragon Warrior.

    The Dragon Warrior ( Dr. Shahaboddin) would be granted “limitless power” after achieving the highest level of kung fu ( published in High Quality journals).

    When I look at his publication ( Dr. Shahaboddin), he managed his works properly. Thus, from 250 of his publications, few mistakes like salami will be happened.

    For those who are following this conversation, perhaps you won’t be able to manage this huge number of publications. If you look at his scopus as Mr. Beall’s mentioned, it is amazing for researcher to increase the citations quickly.

    In conclusion, in response to those researcher who are worried about multidisciplinary works ( You may call different applications same methods) or ( Different methods and same application), to be honest, it is difficult job to manage and published in Q1.

    Someone mentioned about QS for University of Malaya and how they are going to retract the university’s QS.

    The answer:

    How many papers do you want to report or urge editor to withdraw it?

    For your info, see the Cope decision here and section Advice.

    Look at this part.

    Advice from Cope

    1- A distinction needs to be made between salami ( Dr. Shahaboddin) and redundant or Duplication (Prof. Sameem Abdul Rahman) publication: where there is a two thirds overlap, it is redundant publication.

    2- If the hypotheses were completely separate questions then it is acceptable for them to be posed in two separate papers.

    3- If they are related questions, or very closely related, then they should be published as a single paper.

    4-Splitting up papers by outcomes is not legitimate. But, It is an editorial decision as to whether to publish or not: there is no ethical problem here.

  21. Sameem Abdul Kareem says:

    Dear Donald Griffiths,

    Great paper and very helpful guidelines. Appreciate it.

  22. KMT says:

    I am not a staff of UM, but, familiar with Malaysia. After went through all the “real stories”, i find a few important missing points. I maybe wrong. But, If i understand correctly.

    (1) UM requires his PHD candidates to published 2 Q1 journal before thesis submission.

    (2) UM requires their academic staff to publish in Q1 journal for annual assessment.

    (3) UM offers huge sum of internal grant, from the government, to their staff. In return, their staffs have to publish, e.g., RM 100k grant for a Q1 journal.

    (4) UM used to offered monetary incentive for publish in JCR journal (maybe for now, no more), e.g., maybe RM 5k for a Q1 journal. You may calculate, how many could be earn with 100 Q1 journal in a year.

  23. Alan C says:

    Dear Jeffrey,

    This post is getting hot but I’m curious why everyone has strayed from the original topic. I think these “super achievers” are deliberately creating diversions so the heat is not on them. And you fellas are dancing to their tune.

    The old gal is a librarian and she and I came across these papers that you did not even mentioned on your blog. 21 papers on Solar Radiation! And 10 of them were published in 2016 alone! Holy Mackerel!

    I don’t want to spend time analysing them, me and the old gal we got better things to do now. Let you fellas here who seem to have a knack for it do the analysis! Its amazing how much a fella can write on solar energy within 2 years!

    What do you say, fellas? This should keep you busy…

    1. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Kamsin, Amirrudin; Lai, P. C., Mansor, Zulkefli, Identifying The Most Significant Input Parameters For Predicting Global Solar Radiation Using An Anfis Selection Procedure, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 63 Pp 423-434, Sep 2016

    2. Gani, Abdullah; Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Et Al., Day Of The Year-Based Prediction Of Horizontal Global Solar Radiation By A Neural Network Auto-Regressive Model, Theoretical And Applied Climatology Vol 125 Issue: 3-4 Pp 679-689, Aug 2016

    3. Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Tong, Chong Wen; Et Al., A Hybrid Svm-Ffa Method For Prediction Of Monthly Mean Global Solar Radiation, Theoretical And Applied Climatology Vol 125 Issue: 1-2 Pp 53-65, Jul 2016

    4. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Danesh, Amir Seyed; Et Al., Temperature-Based Estimation Of Global Solar Radiation Using Soft Computing Methodologies, Theoretical And Applied Climatology Vol 125 Issue: 1-2 Pp 101-112, Jul 2016

    5. Sajjadi, Shahin; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Alizamir, Meysam; Et Al., Extreme Learning Machine For Prediction Of Heat Load In District Heating Systems, Energy And Buildings Vol 122 Pp 222-227, Jun 15 2016

    6. Nahvi, Behnaz; Habibi, Jafar; Mohammadi, Kasra; Et Al.Using Self-Adaptive Evolutionary Algorithm To Improve The Performance Of An Extreme Learning Machine For Estimating Soil Temperature, , Computers And Electronics In Agriculture Vol 124 Pp 150-160, Jun 2016

    7. Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Khorasanizadeh, Hossein; Et Al., Estimating The Diffuse Solar Radiation Using A Coupled Support Vector Machine-Wavelet Transform Model, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 56 Pp 428-435, Apr 2016

    8. Mohammadi, Kasra; Khorasanizadeh, Hossein; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Et Al., Influence Of Introducing Various Meteorological Parameters To The Angstrom-Prescott Model For Estimation Of Global Solar Radiation, Environmental Earth Sciences Vol 75, 3, 219, Feb 2016

    9. Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Piri, Jamshid; Et Al.Hybrid Auto-Regressive Neural Network Model For Estimating Global Solar Radiation In Bandar Abbas, Iran, Environmental Earth Sciences Vol 75, 2, Jan 2016

    10. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Petkovic, Dalibor; Et Al., Determining The Most Important Variables For Diffuse Solar Radiation Prediction Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Methodology; Case Study: City Of Kerman, Iran, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 53, Pp 1570-1579, Jan 2016

    11. Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Yee, Por Lip; Et Al., A Comparative Evaluation For Identifying The Suitability Of Extreme Learning Machine To Predict Horizontal Global Solar Radiation, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 52 Pp 1031-1042, Dec 2015

    12. Olatomiwa, Lanre; Mekhilef, Saad; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Et Al., Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Approach For Solar Radiation Prediction In Nigeria, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 51 Pp 1784-1791, Nov 2015

    13. Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Chen, Hui-Ling; Et Al., Daily Global Solar Radiation Prediction From Air Temperatures Using Kernel Extreme Learning Machine: A Case Study For Iran, Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 134 Pp 109-117, Nov 2015

    14. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Motamedi, Shervin; Et Al.Extreme Learning Machine Based Prediction Of Daily Dew Point Temperature, Computers And Electronics In Agriculture Vol 117 Pp 214-225, Sep 2015

    15. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Yee, Por Lip; Et Al., Predicting The Wind Power Density Based Upon Extreme Learning Machine, Energy Vol 86 Pp 232-239, Jun 15 2015

    16. Olatomiwa, Lanre; Mekhilef, Saad; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Et Al.Potential Of Support Vector Regression For Solar Radiation Prediction In Nigeria, Natural Hazards Vol 77 Issue: 2 Pp 1055-1068, Jun 2015

    17. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Tong, Chong Wen; Et Al., Potential Of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System For Prediction Of Daily Global Solar Radiation By Day Of The Year, Energy Conversion And Management Vol 93 Pp 406-413, Mar 15 2015

    18. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Tong, Chong Wen; Et Al.A New Hybrid Support Vector Machine-Wavelet Transform Approach For Estimation Of Horizontal Globalsolar Radiation, Energy Conversion And Management Vol 92 Pp 162-171 Published: Mar 1 2015

    19. Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Anisi, Mohammad Hossein; Et Al., Support Vector Regression Based Prediction Of Global Solar Radiation On A Horizontal Surface, Energy Conversion And Management Vol 91 Pp 433-441, Feb 2015

    20. Piri, Jamshid; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Petkovic, Dalibor; Et Al., Prediction Of The Solar Radiation On The Earth Using Support Vector Regression Technique, Infrared Physics & Technology Vol 68 Pp 179-185, Jan 2015

    21. Ramedani, Zeynab; Omid, Mahmoud); Keyhani, Alireza; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin ; Khoshnevisan, Benyamin, Potential Of Radial Basis Function Based Support Vector Regression For Global Solar Radiation prediction, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol 39 Pp 1005-1011, Nov 2014.

      • KMseky says:

        It seems that the Alan C ( a frienf of sameem) is not expert in solar energy and computational intelligence approaches, so she or he does not touch solar device. You may read those papers deeply and dicuss about technical aspects. As I can see, those 20 solar papers are from different regoins. The point is that we can not judge about papers by finding the keywords. Instead of finding a keyword, you can discuss with top professor in Energy in UM.

    • Pipi says:

      Are you technical guy? How did you analyse it? It is fine to read a book about ( solar) and soft computing?

    • Pipi says:

      The same thing happened to saeem publications. More than 10 papers in oil predictions in different region, especially Arab countries. I will list those papers. Arab country should say thanks to samèem for prediction of oil price . Now, the saudi arabia oil price down. Thank you sameem

    • Andrew M says:

      Well, as an academic professor with over 20 years experience in solar and wind energy resources I disagree with post which is kind of insulting. As I read this blog, It seems two groups of researchers are trying to offend the academic reputation of each other which is against the ethic in any case. I teach solar energy engineering in my university for over 15 years in both undergraduate and graduate levels.
      Solar radiation prediction and simulation is a broad concept.

      Solar radiation is defined as the radiant energy emitted by the sun in the form of electromagnetic energy. The solar radiation arriving the earth’s surface has two components: (1) direct or beam radiation that comes directly from the sun’s disk, and (2) diffuse radiation that comes indirectly is scattered out of the direct beam by the atmosphere into hemisphere of sky dome. The summation of diffuse and direct solar radiation is called global or total solar radiation.

      Out of these 21 papers, No 5 is related to heat load in district heating systems which are used to provide required heat for building. No 6 and 14 are related to soil temperature and dew point temperature which are two climatological parameters. No 15 is related to wind energy which is another area of renewable energy. Therefore, we don’t want to talk about them and we should discuss the remaining papers.

      It should be mentioned that solar radiation is a highly location dependent parameter. This means the level and characteristics of solar radiation varies from one location to another location. Thus, the developed model for one site cannot be used for other sites except the time we see the similarity between the climate features of the locations. Thus, to establish the solar plants the availability of solar radiation data is required to ensure the site is suitable for investment. In case of lack of measured solar radiation data, the solar radiation should be predicted using mathematical models and approaches for every location or region.
      In this regard, the authors cannot be criticized for publishing too many solar papers for different regions.

      Also, its seems that different artificial intelligence methods have been used for this aim. If you use the keyword of ANN + solar radiation in the science direct data base you would definitely be able to find a tones of papers. Are all of these papers similar?!

      Moreover, as I found, some of the papers are related to global solar radiation and some other are related to diffuse solar radiation. These two components of solar radiation are completely different and their predictions have different applications. So, there shouldn’t be any problem.

      One more point that I should mention is that global solar radiation can be predicted using different types of input parameters such as temperature based input parameters or sunshine based input parameters, day-of the year based input parameters, etc. One of the interesting areas of solar radiation simulation is to determine which method is more suitable for the
      desired location.

      As a solar expert, I’d like to give you a example. Angstrom-Prescott Model, also appeared in the title of paper 8, is one of the most well-known empirical solar radiation model developed by Angstrom-Prescott around 70 years ago and it is still using in this area. If you just search Angstrom-Prescott + solar radiation through google you will see several papers for various case studies. Are all of those authors have published similar papers?!

      As I said, solar radiation which has different components is dependent on the location and should be predicted for each location separately. Also, the developed models should be precise as much as possible. This encourages the researchers from all parts of the world, to develop new models using novel approaches to achieve more accuracy.

      So a person who is not expert in solar radiation cannot assess the works published in solar energy area.

      Hope this post can be useful for all!

  24. Gillian C says:

    As I read this blog, It seems two groups of researchers are trying to offend the academic reputation of each other which is against the ethic in any case.

    -Well said!

%d bloggers like this: