Surgical strike by the scholars in the world.

It is really a matter of serious concern that the Editors of the so -called reputed international journals published by American Chemical Society, Springer and Elsevier are all promoting Scientific misconducts including plagiarism. This is a dangerous trend for the growth of science. I hereby invite Fellows of Academies to take strict measures.

van Schaaijk, Lieke, Springer SBM NL To [email protected] CC Pimentel, Rochiel Today at 15:18

Dear Dr. Rathore, Thank you for your email. We are sorry to hear that you did not receive feedback from the responsible publishing colleague yet. We do take cases like this very seriously, and investigate them carefully. The time this takes depends on the case, but we do everything we can to address the issue as soon as possible. Please rest assured that we are looking into this and you will be contacted shortly. With kind regards, Lieke Boerefijn-van Schaaijk Transfer Policy & Implementation Coordinator Springer Nature van Godewijckstraat 30 3311 GX Dordrecht The Netherlands Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 786576843 www.springer.com/transfer From: d r [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 10:41 AM To: Pimentel, Rochiel Subject: Re: Editor's decision on DESK-D-16-06251 - [EMID:6be355a042823b95] It is very clear that Journal of Geological Society of India and Springer Publishers are promoting fraud and Plagiarism. No action as on date even after providing you the material evidences on . "The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha". Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

Based on material evidence, this published manuscript should be retracted on the grounds of plagiarism and fraud People d r To [email protected] 26 Oct at 2:20 PM As on date , there is no final action: Comments on: The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha” by Chaturvedi, Anand Kumar, Ramesh Babu Veldi , Markandeyulu Amulotu, R.Pavanaguru and Anjan Chaki published in Journal Geological Society of India, Vol.,85,June 2015, pp.657-672, Most urgent-Reminder-V –Retraction of publication-regd Letter to the Editor: Query related to publication titled “The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha” by Chaturvedi, Anand Kumar, Ramesh Babu Veldi , Mar Letter to the Editor: Query related to publication titled “The Role of GIS ... Official Full-Text Publication: Letter to the Editor: Query related to publication titled “The Role of GIS in Sp... This is in continuation of my email dated 5th August, 2016 and speed post dated 7th June, 2016, 27th June, 2016 and September 13, 2016 on the above subject. I request you to kindly expedite your decision. Based on material evidence, this published manuscript should be retracted on the grounds of plagiarism and fraud. Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE , M.Sc., M.Phil., Ph.D., FRSC Retd. Senior Scientist, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, 150/8, SHIPRAPATH, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR-302020 email: [email protected] 3 Attachments View all Download all Download cover letter-Oct2016 .doc Download Comments-JGSI2016 .doc Download Title .doc

In view of my communications stated herein, It appears to me that now a days, the Journal Editors are simply acts like a postman and communicator among Author and Reviewers. Based on reviewers recommendations, Editors communicate the decision of publishing the manuscript to authors and later passed on to production manager of the publishing house and so on.Moreover, they continue to justify the review process just to cover up the fundamental/basic mistakes.Such a declining trend in ethics in scientific research publication may prove highly dangerous.

It is the responsibility of readers, authors , scholars and Fellows of the scientific academies to seriously think for various steps to restore the quality of publications for the growth of science. Scientific temperament has declined drastically.

Sweedler, Jonathan V To d r [email protected] [email protected] Prof. Dr. Reinhard Niessner Today at 20:55

Dear Dr. D.P.S. Rathore, I have already answered this email. Sending the same message again does not help. Regards, Jonathan

RE: AW: Request for permission to share the comments of the reviewer on RG (2)

People Sweedler, Jonathan V To [email protected] CC [email protected] 26 Oct at 12:41 AM Dear Dr. Devendra P.S. Rathore, I have read your comments and see you have posted them on Research Gate. I also know that the associate editor has responded to you. I will also respond. You are correct that if one wanted to make robust measurements of uranyl ions in water today, one would use the instrumental intensive approaches you describe and that several controls are not present. As I read the article, its major is the development of an approach to detect uranyl in water that does NOT require instrumentation but uses a visual readout. You ask why we would publish such an exploratory article. This is the exploratory type science we do publish in Analytical Chemistry. The standard progression of approach that occurred with many other portable measurements is similar to this; the first devices and approaches have performance specifications that may not be ideal, but within a reasonable time, the researchers have improved their approach until it is practical and robust. This has happened with mercury measurements, as one example. Yes, one can use ICP-MS, and other approaches to make the measurement more robust but that was not the point of the manuscript. The work is interesting, was reviewed by experts in the field who see the potential of this approach and the work should spur continued development of a visual method to detect ultratrace levels of aqueous uranyl ions. Let me also add that your Research Gate article is dated October 7th, suggesting that a public response / comment from Analytical Chemistry after you published your comment was not needed. As far as posting the comments of the reviewers, we do not release reviews of our manuscript and clearly tell them that they are confidential before they submit them. Hence, we cannot release the reviews. Jonathan Sweedler Editor-in-Chief, Analytical Chemistry -----Original Message----- From: "d r" Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 11:35am To: "[email protected]" Subject: Fw: AW: Request for permission to share the comments of the reviewer on RG

Editor-In-Chief

Jonathan V. Sweedler Director of the School of Chemical Sciences James R. Eiszner Family Endowed Chair in Chemistry Center for Advanced Study Professor of Chemistry University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Dear Editor-in-Chief,, Analytical Chemistry is a standard journal. Why the reviewers/ Editors are promoting unscientific activities by publishing such exploratory stage publications without thorough investigations. Now a days, even a class 12 th students knows that Na+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+ concentrations are more than 1ooo μg L-1 ( 1 ppm ) in water samples. Any errors, if noticed even after its acceptance /publication, should be rectified through additions/corrections in published article, instead of propagation of such errors further.. I request the Editor, of Analytical Chemistry , ACS, to take this comment seriously and publish an erratum at the earliest. In my opinion, any publication should not be simply for the sake of publication.Any new methodology should be thoroughly optimized for its potential real applications/or advancement in science. Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE Show original message On Friday, 7 October 2016 9:02 PM, d r wrote:

Dear Editor, Analytical Chemistry is a standard journal. Why the reviewers/ Editors are promoting unscientific activities by publishing such exploratory stage publications without thorough investigations. Now a days, even a class 12 th students knows that Na+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+ concentrations are more than 1ooo μg L-1 ( 1 ppm ) in water samples. Any errors, if noticed even after its acceptance /publication, should be rectified through additions/corrections in published article, instead of propagation of such errors further.. I request the Editor, of Analytical Chemistry , ACS, to take this comment seriously and publish an erratum at the earliest. In my opinion, any publication should not be simply for the sake of publication.Any new methodology should be thoroughly optimized for its potential real applications/or advancement in science. Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

On Friday, 7 October 2016 8:34 PM, d r wrote:

On Research Gate:Working Paper: Comments on: Highly sensitive and selective method for detecting ultra-trace levels of aqueous uranyl ions by strongly photoluminescent responsive amine modified cadmium sulphide quantum dots’ by Raj Kumar Dutta and Ambika Kumar, Anal. Chem., 2016, 88 (18), pp 9071–9078. This is an interesting article/review for the researchers , peer reviewers, editors and readers to suggest ways to improve the manuscripts and quality publications for the real growth of science world wide. Why the reviewers/ Editors are promoting unscientific activities by publishing such exploratory stage publications without thorough investigations. Now a days, even a class 12 th students knows that Na+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+ concentrations are more than 1ooo μg L-1 ( 1 ppm ) in water samples. Any errors, if noticed even after its acceptance /publication, should be rectified through additions/corrections in published article, instead of propagation of such errors further.. I request the Editor, of Analytical Chemistry , ACS, to take this comment seriously and publish an erratum at the earliest. In my opinion, any publication should not be simply for the sake of publication.Any new methodology should be thoroughly optimized for its potential real applications/or advancement in science.

Based on my experience, I would like to share my observations and comments on the above cited manuscript. 1..The recommended primary standard is a 1000 ppm U (mg/l) uranyl nitrate solution made up with 5% nitric acid and not simply prepared in DI water.2. The authors have studied the effect of major cations ( i.e., , Na+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+ and using as high as 1000 μg L-1 cation concentrations) at 1000 μg/L ( 1mg/l) concentration level. How authors could apply the present method to real water sample analysis.? The concentration of major cations and anions in tested water samples should be evaluated and presented.The results reported in Table 2. Recovery analysis of spiked uranyl ions in deionized water, groundwater and river water samples, appears highly misleading. The application of the method for real water sample with these tolerance limits is practically impossible ( appears fabricated). This requires further thorough optimization and validation of the method…

comment of reviewer: Last para The work by Dutta and Kumar can further be polished through standard communication channels such as phone and e-mail and I am convinced that Rathore can contribute to that.

This is for your valuable further comments.

Regards,

Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE FRSC Retd. Senior Scientist, AMD

Show original message On Friday, 7 October 2016 8:13 PM, d r wrote:

of course but on my comments on submitted to the Analytical Chemistry journal.

Comments on: Highly sensitive and selective method for detecting ultra-trace levels of aqueous uranyl ions by strongly photoluminescent responsive amine modified cadmium sulphide quantum dots’ by Raj Kumar Dutta and Ambika Kumar, Anal. Chem., 2016, 88 (18), pp 9071–9078.

I wish to evaluate myself .If my comments are scientifically correct , they should be published in the journal. No one is perfect. The main challenging task of an analytical chemist is to identify mistakes and should be rectified immediately. I am working very seriously on the project: Human errors: its implications on the growth of science. Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

On Friday, 7 October 2016 8:00 PM, "[email protected]" wrote:

This I can´t do. They are property of the reviewers. Sincerely, Reinhard Niessner Prof. Dr. Reinhard Niessner Institute of Hydrochemistry Chair of Analytical Chemistry Marchioninistrasse 17 D-81377 München Germany

Phone : +49 89 218078231 Fax : +49 89 218078255

Homepage : www.ws.chemie.tu-muenchen.de Von: d r Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016 16:02 An: [email protected] Betreff: Request for permission to share the comments of the reviewer on RG Dear Editor, I Request for permission to share the comments of the reviewer on RG related with:

Comments on: Highly sensitive and selective method for detecting ultra-trace levels of aqueous uranyl ions by strongly photoluminescent responsive amine modified cadmium sulphide quantum dots’ by Raj Kumar Dutta and Ambika Kumar, Anal. Chem., 2016, 88 (18), pp 9071–9078.

Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

Reply Reply to All Forward More d r To Sweedler, Jonathan V 26 Oct at 12:26 PM Dear Dr. Jonathan V. Sweedler, There are similar mistakes in his earlier publication in RSC ADV., 2015, 5, 77192–77203. I have taken up this issue with the Editor of RSC Adv. This is how, the human errors propagate from one journal to others and so on. My serious objections are on basic /fundamental mistakes in this publication. It requires immediate attention for its rectification.Science has no limit. The response of your Associate Editor is highly unscientific. Now the game is over, etc. Moreover, there was no response from your side. In these circumstances, I am compelled to post on RG. Basic scientific facts/fundamentals can not be manipulated whether it is Detection, or determination. Analytical Chemistry is a standard journal. Why the reviewers/ Editors are promoting unscientific activities by publishing such exploratory stage publications without thorough investigations. Now a days, even a class 12 th students knows that Na+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+ concentrations are more than 1000 μg L-1 ( 1 ppm ) in water samples. Any errors, if noticed even after its acceptance /publication, should be rectified through additions/corrections in published article, instead of propagation of such errors further.. In my opinion, any publication should not be simply for the sake of publication.Any new methodology should be thoroughly optimized for its potential real applications/or advancement in science. I request the Editor-in-chief, of Analytical Chemistry , ACS, to take this comment seriously and publish an erratum at the earliest. Regards, Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much in advance, please check the following link.

https://veriguide4.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/vg_report/app/report_error.jsp

Regards,

Emad

https://veriguide4.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/vg_report/app/report_error.jsp

Here's how, summarised from en.writecheck.com:

Paraphrase - Read it and put it into your own words. Make sure that you do not copy verbatim more than two words in a row from the text you have found. If you do use more than two words together, you will have to use quotation marks. 

Cite - Citing is one of the effective ways to avoid plagiarism. Follow the document formatting guidelines (i.e. APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) used by your educational institution or the institution that issued the research request. This usually entails the addition of the author(s) and the date of the publication or similar information. 

Quoting - When quoting a source, use the quote exactly the way it appears. No one wants to be misquoted. Most institutions of higher learning frown on “block quotes” or quotes of 40 words or more.

Citing Quotes - Citing a quote can be different than citing paraphrased material. This practice usually involves the addition of a page number, or a paragraph number in the case of web content.

Citing Your Own Material - If some of the material you are using for your research paper was used by you in your current class, a previous one, or anywhere else you must cite yourself. 

Referencing - One of the most important ways to avoid plagiarism is including a reference page or page of works cited at the end of your research paper. Again, this page must meet the document formatting guidelines used by your educational institution.