The articles in Current Science, are published with proper refereeing.

Nobody is immune from mistakes.

I totally disagree. The review system of Current Science is extremely good and language of the paper is improved a lot. Plagiarism check is a must on their part.

Current Science is not exclusively a journal of taxonomy but includes such papers in their issues. It has impact factor. Probably no other journals in India where taxonomic papers are published have impact factor.

Can you kindly post PDF of some papers on plant taxonomy published in Current Science where blunders have been made?

Nice information. Srivastava Sir must have seen blunders. Now he should post PDF of a few such papers in RG. Otherwise how we can ascertain if he has seen the genuine Current Science or the predatory one?

Nagendra has made a valuable posting.

See

https://journosdiary.com/2017/07/14/predatory-journal-current-science/

I have some tiny publications in Current Science and they have been published with my full satisfaction.

Thank you Dr Nagendra for the valuable information.

I have already mentioned in my opening sentence about Current Science.

I feel that in view of the facts as mentioned by you,the authorities at Bangalore should take extra precautions in selecting referees and some one at HQs should check the basic facts mentioned in the manuscripts received.

Thanking you once again for the valuable information about the fake/predatory journal publishing in the name of our original Current Science

Regards

RCS

Can you give an example why the Editor of the real Current Science should be more cautious in selecting referees and basic facts?

In my opinion the original Current Science is still a pride for India, until and unless can be contradicted by evidence!

Mistakes can be there in each and every journal but only good journal Editors admit them and publish errata. The bad ones even do not bother to reply.

In Kew Bulletin I saw the same paper being published twice because in the first paper they published a photo in black and white which should have been in colour. I cannot recall the particular volumes now.

No it is not true. Articles submitted to Current Science are well reviewed before publication.

Dr Aravind

Have you seen the comments of Dr Nath?

@ Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Sir,

Just read the comments of Dr. Nagendra Nath Das. It is a very useful information shared by Dr. Das on ResearchGate.

I think, all articles before publication is well reviewed. There are several rigorous processes paper will go to maintain the quality of it.

Best!

Interesting to know about your concern. Error and mistakes may be anywhere. But I would like to mention that anything can happen these days. So, not a matter to surprise!

@ Dr. R.C. Srivastava - Finding proper reviewers is always a problem of the journals in the world. Fortunately Current Science (CS) published from IISc campus, Bangalore has a section named 'Correspondence' wherein any researcher can raise any anomaly observed in the published papers. CS then refers to such issues to the author/authors for suitable 'Response'. Both are then published in the next issue of CS for all readers of the journal. I think this is the best way to raise the publication standard of any journal.The journal authorities also come to know how and why it could happen and then they probably revise the existing list of Reviewers. CS is no doubt a very good journal handled by very competent scientists of the country.

I have six published papers in 'Correspondence' section of Current Scientist. If there is anything wrong I am responsible for that, neither the Editor of Current Science nor the reviewers.

Another is in Editing process.

Here the apprehension or allegation(?) [a claim or assertion that someone has done something wrong, typically without proof (at least so far)] in the form of an innocent query is against the original Current Science not the predatory one.

Dr Ramesh Chandra Srivasatava

Can you please post the article/s of Current Science (India) or full reference of the articles you are referring too? I am unable see your opening sentences. Dr Nagenra Nath has explained in sufficient details about the fake Current Science. I am sure you had referred to articles published in Fake Current Science published from elsewhere and not from Bengaluru.

The Chief Editor of Current Science published from Bengaluru has brought to the notice of all readers of Current Science about the fake journal of the same name through a note in several issues during this year I am surprised why you could not distinguish between the original and fake !!!

In my opinion without having any case in front of us it seems inappropriate to comment on the editorial policy/ reviewing of Current Science. It only tarnish the image of this trusted journal of India. I have published few articles in this journal (Scientific Correspondence, Correspondence) and believe the reviewing is of good standard. Few of my writings intended for correspondence were even declined based on the merits, I have no regrets for that but it proves the quality of Journal. Better if we come up with clear cases before questioning the quality of Current Science.

That is what I am requesting for. Some of my manuscripts were also rejected. I too have no regrets for that.

Dr Nath's comments has already clarified the position.

I have full regards for the journal,for the Institute and for the Governing board.

Thank you for the clarification.

Good night.

Imran: RCS could not make out difference between the original and predatory Current Science. That is why he posted such a question.