The editors of predatory journals follow the policy of their owners, they are salary oriented, so they are encouraging scientific misconduct. Huge publication fees is their practice! 

Predatory journals and academic pollution is fine resource about this issue.

Article Predatory journals and academic pollution

Recent article titled “Lessons from the recent publication scams” published in Current Science, Vol.,106, No.5, 10 March, 2014, p.649, is worth to be quoted here. In my opinion also, for the growth of science, it is important to teach ethics to researchers, and to keep a check on their work through individual institutions and departments. Such accountability can track individual scientific contributions, which would eventually, help one to stop or minimize scientific misconduct.

Article Lessons from the recent publication scams

In house journals/ superior authority owned copy-righted journals ( say, Exploration and Research for Atomic Minerals,(© Director, AMD, DAE, Govt. of India, ISSN-0970-9231 ) are the best to increase number of publications manifold for superior authorities and one can easily manipulate OUT-standing Scientist /geoscience mineral award, etc in any Government organization. Whatever, authority wish can be published. Citation per document during the year 2006-2013  are 0.06 as per SJR.

This is for the readers/scholars/experts to give your valuable comments amd suggestions.

Editor-in-Chief

Indian Journal of Physics

Dear Editor,

As on date, I am not yet satisfied with the reply to decline my query for publication in IJP. The reply quoted as

quote " we had sent this comment to the concerned authors and some of the other respected reviewers of Indian Journal of Physics. Unfortunately we have received no reports from them" unquote , is absolutely unscientific.

I hereby request to the Hon Editor of IJP to kindly consider it again.

Regards,

Dr.D.P.S. RATHORE

Incharge,

Chemical Laboratory, Central Region

Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research

Department of Atomic Energy, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001(MS), India

E-mail: [email protected]

From: Editors IJP

To: D P S RATHORE

Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2013 5:38 PM

Subject: INJP: Your manuscript entitled Comments on "Uranium concentration in drinking water samples using the SSNTDs"

Ref.: Ms. No. INJP-D-13-00093R2

Comments on "Uranium concentration in drinking water samples using the SSNTDs"

Indian Journal of Physics

Dear Dr. Rathore,

Thank you for submission to our journal. You have commented on a paper that was published 5 years back, as per journal norms, we had sent this comment to the concerned authors and some of the other respected reviewers of Indian Journal of Physics. Unfortunately we have received no reports from them. We are therefore not able to consider it for being published in the Indian Journal of Physics.

Thanking you for interest in the Indian Journal of Physics and best regards,

Sincerely,

Editor-in-Chief

Indian Journal of Physics

This is one more such communication.

I am also attaching a copy of another publication by authors citing the above publication as Reference number[11].

Biosorption of Arsenic (III) from drinking water by using low cost biosorbents derived

from peels of Oranges, Turnip and Peanut shells ,published by:

Mandeep Sidhu

Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences,

Lovely professional University, Punjab, India

Promila Sama

Associate Professor and Head, Medical Lab Technology,

BIS Institute of Science and Technology, Gagra , Moga

Jasleen Parmar

Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences,

Lovely professional University, Punjab, India

Sheelendra M Bhatt

Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences,

Lovely professional University, Punjab, India

Published in: International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development

On searching the home page of this journal: International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development,   on 'google.com', the following observations are here:

Note:   The journal wesite for: International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development

NOTICE: This domain name expired on 14-02-2015 and is pending renewal or deletion.

Welcome to: ijprdd.org

This Web page is parked for FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy.com.

The first volume first issue of this journal was published in May 2014.

The validity of this new journal is doubtful . The publisher details & ISSN number of the journal is missing.

This is for the kind information to the authors/readers/RG members.

Authors are hereby requested to kindly share the link of the website of the journal:

International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development

Article Biosorption of Arsenic (III) from drinking water by using lo...

There is one more such paper:

Highly sensitive & low cost colorimetric method for quantifying arsenic metal in drinking water of Malwa Punjab and comparison with ICAP-AES

The authors claim in the abstract of the paper quote “We have developed a highly sensitive & cost effective colorimetric method for quantifying Arsenic metal in drinking water of and the result of sample analysis has been compared with ICAP-AES method” unquote. On the contrary, authors have cited reference number ‘10’ in their publication on page 106, in the Section -Determination of Arsenic. There is no update of literature survey on arsenic determination in water. There is no validation of this new developed method using recovery/standard addition method, optimization of variables ( pH, reagent concentration,         λmax, nor any study of effect of foreign ions/tolerance limits and its comparison with EPA-standard method reported in the literature[2], instrument manufacturer/models, etc. Moreover, the procedure described is practically impossible, I quote from their publication on page 106,  in the Section -Determination of Arsenic, quote “ An aliquot of sample solution containing 0.2-14 μg/mL of arsenic was transferred into series of test tubes. Then potassium iodide (2%, w/v) (1mL) and sulphuric acid (0.1M), (1 mL) were added and mixture was gently shaken. EDTA (0.01%), (1 mL) was added and mixture was gently shaken. This was followed by addition of CCl4 (7%, w/v), ( 1mL). The solution was kept for 5 min and made 10 mL by adding distilled water. The absorbance of pink colour was measured at 515 nm. This method involves the liberation of iodine by the reaction of arsenic with potassium iodate in acidic medium. The liberated iodine selectively oxidizes CCl4 to form pink color which have maximum absorbance at 515 nm [10]” unquote. The range quoted is 0.2-14 μg/mL of arsenic while in the abstract authors further claimed that “The liberated iodine selectively oxidizes CCl4 to form pink color which have maximum absorbance at 515 nm [10]”. This statement on the reaction ‘liberated iodine selectively oxidizes CCl4 to form pink color’ is incorrect. In addition to, the colour was developed in test tubes and not in calibrated volumetric flasks.  Authors statement and claim that         “Our modified colorimetric method of arsenic determination is sensitive up to 0.0167 mg/L without any interference at 515nm” -> is absolutely incorrect and highly misleading. I have strong objections to such unscientific statements.

From Table1, how the authors are able to determine arsenic concentration in water samples stated by them ranging from 0.001 to 0.073 mg/L. The authors claims are self-contradictory, highly misleading and has no scientific basis.

On page, 107, From section quote“ Water sample detection by ICAP-AES: Water samples which were collected from various regions and were send to Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana for accurate measurement of arsenic by ICAP-AES (Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy)” unquote. The details of the instrument model, manufacturer and operating conditions are missing.

There is no validation of this new developed method using recovery/standard addition method, optimization of variables ( pH, reagent concentration,         λmax, nor any study of effect of foreign ions/tolerance limits and its comparison with EPA-standard method reported in the literature[2], instrument manufacturer/models, etc.

Authors statement and claim that  “Our modified colorimetric method of arsenic determination is sensitive up to 0.0167 mg/L without any interference at 515nm” -> is absolutely incorrect and highly misleading. I have strong objections to such unscientific statements.

From Table1, how the authors are able to determine arsenic concentration in water samples stated by them ranging from 0.001 to 0.073 mg/L. The authors claims are self-contradictory, highly misleading and has no scientific basis.

On page, 107, From section quote“ Water sample detection by ICAP-AES: Water samples which were collected from various regions and were send to Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana for accurate measurement of arsenic by ICAP-AES (Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy)” unquote. The details of the instrument model, manufacturer and operating conditions are missing. From Table1 and figure1, presenting comparative analysis of data, there are large differences among them [ Sl No. 4 Kartar Singh Wala,  0.073±0.07  Arsenic ICAP-AES (mg/L)  0.044±0.98 Arsenic UV-Vis. Spectro (mg/L),   Sl No. 2 Gehri Bhagi,  0.056±.06   Arsenic ICAP-AES (mg/L) ; 0.033±0.89 Arsenic UV-Vis. Spectro (mg/L)]. Such comparison of analytical data has no reliability and validity. It is very clear that authors have not even read the cited reference number ‘10’ in their publication about statistical analysis of results using paired t-test and F-test.

The determination at

There is no Scientific reply /response from Hedayat-Allah Salem

Prof. Dr. NCRRT, EAEA

Chairman, ESRSA

Editor in- Chief, JRRAS & JNTAS :

Dear Latha,

I am sending this email for your kind assistance.

Please be informed that we have been contacted by Dr Rathore several times regarding the decision on his manuscript JRRAS-D-15-00045.

His manuscript was rejected but there is no reviewers comments indicated on the decision letter. From checking EES, this manuscript was not sent out for review. However, it is indicated on the decision letter sent to author that "the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication".

As such, the author would like to have a scientific reply from the Editor.

I have contacted the Editor regarding this matter but I am unable to received any response from him after my subsequent follow up.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into this matter and advise on what should be the next appropriate action so I can advise the author on the same.

Hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind regards,

Jomil Percil

Researcher Support

Note: I will continue to raise this issue and it is a gross Scientific Misconduct promoted by Journal Manager and Editor-in-Chief of the journal   JRRAS.

It's unethical. Scientific work cannot exist in such situations. Science requires honest efforts, all these are suicidal attempt to development.

Dear Prof Rathore, is it possible that the main reason these journals exist is to reap monetary gains?  Their aim may not be to encourage scientific conduct for the progress of science.  (So they publish the papers from researchers who pay some money.  And they put the papers online so that less experienced researchers like me fall into the error of citing them.  But on RG, I have friends who warn me against some of these journals.)  

However, my college does not allow me to pay to publish and does not provide anyone with a research grant.  So I must do good research, and publish in a local journal without impact factor.  And I found that some of these journals are Scopus based.  They are reasonably good journals, but they do not have impact factor.  And we have RG to display our publications, and I come to realize that impact factor isn't the only measure of the caliber of a researcher.  Have a good day.

The editors of predatory journals follow the policy of their owners, they are salary oriented, so they are encouraging scientific misconduct. Huge publication fees is their practice! 

Predatory journals and academic pollution is fine resource about this issue.

Article Predatory journals and academic pollution

Dear @D.P.S. RATHORE, let me bring some threads to your attention. They are very related to this one. Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers is given.

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_collect_information_on_non-predatory_professional_Open_Access_publishers_independent_OA_journals

https://www.researchgate.net/post/About_Bealls_list_of_predatory_publishers_What_is_the_basis_for_quality_of_a_journal_publisher_or_the_journal_itself

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_you_identify_and_avoid_predatory_journals_and_publisher

Dear Dr. Ljubomir Jacić ,  I wish to share that the Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences ( JRRAS) is Elsevier  supported journal,Journal of Indian Chemical Society is the oldest journal of India and Indian Journal of Physics is Springer  journal. I have taken up the issue with Elsevier support team.Let us see the final outcome.

As on date, there is no response from the Editor -in-Chief of JRRAS.

I am attaching a link: The poisoned waters of Punjab        http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/poisoned-waters-punjab

I am attaching a copy of paper recently published:   Bajwa, B. S., et al., Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water

samples of SW-Punjab, India, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.jrras.2015.01.002

I have read this paper (Bajwa,et al., 2015) and all the cited references in this manuscript. I would like to share some of my observations on this manuscript which may be useful for future research and a meaningful publication.

In Section 3 of the manuscript, Experimental techniques, sub-section3.1, it is stated that Laser

fluorimeter manufactured by Quantalase Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Indore, India was used for analyses of water samples for uranium concentrations in this work. The Quantalase Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Indore, India has

manufactured a number of fluorimetry instrument models differing in specifications as well as in performance qualifications. It is mandatory

in all publications to clearly mention the instrumental details to ensure reliability of measurement results. The model number of the

instrument is missing.

In sub section, 3.1.1. Analytic procedure, as stated, quote “Analytic procedure begins with taking 10 ml aliquot of filtered water sample in duplicate for wet digestion (HClO4 and HNO3) on hot plates to destroy

organic material in the sample” unquote. Moreover, authors further stated that quote “ The residue was then dissolved in Milliporeelix-3 water followed by mixing with fluorescence reagent (5% sodium pyrophosphate) to make the total volume 25 ml and to adjust pH to 7.2 levels.The sample solution was then taken into a cuvette for the measurement of U

concentration” unquote. On the other hand, authors further stated that quote “The instrument was calibrated in the range of 1-100 µgl-1 using a

stock solution of standard that was prepared by dissolving 1.78 g of uranyl acetate dihydrate (CH3COO)2UO2.2H2O) in 1 l of Millipore elix-3

water containing 1 ml of HNO3 (70% pure). 5% phosphoric acid in ultra pure water was used as fluorescence reagent. To obtain blank counts, a

blank sample containing same amount of fluorescing reagent was measured for U concentration” unquote. The same fluorescence enhancing reagent should be used for calibration of the instrument and subsequent measurement of uranium in samples. The procedure adopted for uranium determination is wrong. Further statement and claim by the authors quote “Quality assurance was made by analysis of IAEA standard reference

materials, spike recovery, replicate analysis, and cross method checking” appears highly misleading.

Laser-induced fluorescence is very sensitive, selective and fast method for ultratrace uranium determination especially needed for hydrogeochemical reconnaissance surveys. Any additional chemical preparation of sample will introduce contamination and high blank value. A choice of an appropriate fluorescence enhancing reagent for different types of sample matrices is essential (Rathore, et al.,2001). Moreover, there are

different procedures reported for different type of sample matrix followed by laser-induced fluorimetry (Rathore, 2008). Truly, the reliability of analytical

results depends on strict adherence to the various steps of the validated

method and not on fluorimetry technique or laboratory or a person.

Direct methods for the analysis of uranium in natural water samples

should be adopted.

For

water samples, the best fluorescence enhancing reagent is 5 % sodium

pyrophosphate solution in distilled water adjusted to pH-7.0–7.2 by drop-wise addition of orthophosphoric acid (as per the manual of the

instrument). Highly saline water samples require sample preparation, the high uranium content in

such samples needs to be validated by conventional fluorimetry technique and level of variation, if any, have been documented. Authors are advised

to go through the application manual of UA-3 uranium analyser

(Robbins,1978, Robbins and Kinrade,1980, Robbins, et al., 1985) also the

manual of the instrument and other publications( Rathore,2013, 2014).

The presence of fluoride may significantly affect the changes in uranium content (Rathore,2013, 2014).

In section, 3.2., Elemental analysis in water using atomic absorption spectrophotometry and sub-section 3.2.1. Analytic procedure, in the manuscript, as stated by authors, quote “100 ml aliquot of filtered water sample was taken in duplicate for wet digestion (HNO3) on hot plates to destroy organic material in the sample. 25 ml of the prepared

sample was injected in the nebulizer-spray chamber-burner system of the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer. Air-acetylene compressed gas has been used as oxidant and fuel. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer was standardized with standard element concentrations in prior” unquote and as claimed by authors in the manuscript regarding heavy metal concentration ( The heavy metal concentration variations observed in drinking water samples of the study region is reported in Table 4). The manufacturer and model number of the instrument is missing. Using the above procedure for preconcentration and keeping

in view of the characteristic concentration of these heavy metals (characteristic concentration [mgl-1/1% Abs]: for As, 0.68 at 193.7 nm; Pb,0.3 at 283.3 nm; Cu,0.035 at 324.8 nm ; Mn, 0.03 at 279.5 nm; Co,0.075 at 240.7 nm; Ni,0.07 at 232.0 nm; Fe,0.08 at 248.3 nm ; Zn, 0.012 at 213.9 nm and Cr, 0.05 at

357.9 nm) using flame Atomic Absorption pectrophotometer, their determination at 4µgl-1 concentration levels is practically impossible.

This claim by the authors is absolutely incorrect and highly misleading’’. I (strongly) disagree with their statement in the manuscript. Interpretation and conclusions based on such unreliable results will be highly misleading.

The use of instrumental methods for trace metal ion determinations frequently requires preconcentration procedures. Methods widely used for preconcentration are based on liquid–liquid

extraction, ion exchange and chelating resins. The chelating resins are capable of preconcentrating metal ions selectively from a large volume and may be

easily coupled with flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) to

enhance its sensitivity(Kumar et al., 2000, 2001).

In the Acknowledgement section of the manuscript, quote “the authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement and consistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K. Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work” unquote.

I found something unusual in the acknowledgement. Authors have acknowledged their two co-authors by name (R.M. Tripathi and S.K. Sahoo).

{Title and authors of the paper: Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India B.S. Bajwa a,*, Sanjeev Kumar a, Surinder Singh a, S.K. Sahoo b,

R.M. Tripathi b, a Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab 143005, India b Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

Acknowledgement

The authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement andconsistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K.Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work. We are also thankful to the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Department

of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, for

providing financial assistance during this research work.}

Is it acceptable to acknowledge co-authors in the acknowledgement section of the paper? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p... [accessed Sep 18, 2015].

Since this research work is financed by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy(DAE-BRNS), Mumbai, India, it is a misuse and wastage of fund due to greediness of the authors for publications, fame etc.Interpretation and conclusions based on such unreliable results for uranium and other heavy metal analysis will be highly misleading.

I request that the authors of the subject article kindly further document the reliability of their findings in view of the concerns expressed herein.

REFERENCES

B.S.

Bajwa , Sanjeev Kumar , Surinder Singh , S.K. Sahoo, .M. Tripathi

(2015), Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrras.2015.01.002, in press.

D.

P. S. Rathore, P. K. Tarafder, M. Kayal and Manjeet Kumar (2001), Application of a differential technique in laser-induced fluorimetry : simple and a precise method for the direct determination of uranium in

mineralised rocks at percentage level, Anal. Chim. Acta 434, 201–208.

D. P. S. Rathore (2008) Advances in technologies for the measurement of uranium in diverse matrices , Talanta 77, 9–20.

J. C. Robbins(1978), Field techniques for the measurement of uranium in natural water, C. I. M. Bull., 71, 61–67 and the references therein.

J. C. Robbins and J. D. Kinrade (1980), United States Patent, patent no. 4,239,964.

J.C. Robbins, C. Castledine, W. Kostiak (1985), Analytical Procedures

for UA-3 Uranium Analysis—Applications Manual, Scintrex Limited,

Ontario, Canada.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Interpretation and evaluation of the variations in the uranium, major cations and anions content of hydrogeochemical samples

with reference to the time interval between sampling and analysis,

Exploration & Research for Atomic Minerals,23, 207-215.

D.P.S.

Rathore (2013) Letter to the Editor: Query related to the publication titled‘‘Application of fission track technique for estimation of uranium concentration in drinking waters of Punjab’’ by Prabhu et

al.294:443–446 (2012), doi:10.1007/s10967-011-1503-2 ,Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 298 , 717-719.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to Editor : Query related to publication titled ‘‘A comparative analysis of uranium in potable waters using laser fluorimetry and ICPMS techniques’’ by Shenoy et al. 294:413–417(2012),

doi: 10.1007/s10967-012-1705-2, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 298, 721-723.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Reply to: Uranium concentration in ground water samples

belonging to some areas of Western Haryana, India using fission track registration technique, Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology,

5(3), March 2013. DOI: 10.5897/JPHE2013.0517

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to HERA’s Editor Concerning the Paper “Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium in Subsurface Water of Punjab State,

India? (Kumar et al. 2011a) Human Ecology and Risk Assessment, 19, 1147–1149.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to Editor : Query related to publication titled “Geochemical modeling of uranium speciation in the subsurface aquatic

environment of Punjab State in India” by Ajay Kumar, Sabyasachi Rout,

Usha Narayanan, Manish K. Mishra, R. M.Tripathi, Jaspal Singh, Sanjeev

Kumar and H. S. Kushwaha, Published in Journal of Geology and Mining

Research Vol. 3(5), pp. 137-146, May 2011. Journal of Geology and Mining

Research, 5(5), 108-113.

D.P.S. Rathore (2014) Uranium Exploration, Current Science, 106,792.

D.P.S Rathore (2014) Comments on: Uranium Concentration in Groundwater in

Hisar City, India by Garg VK, Yadav A, Singh K, et al. Uranium concentration in groundwater in Hisar city, India. Int J Occup Environ Med 2014; 5:112-114. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 5, 169-171.

D.P.S. Rathore (2014) Letter to the Editor: Comments related to the publication titled ‘‘uranium in ground water from Western Haryana, India’’ by Balvinder Singh, V. K. Garg, Poonam Yadav, Nawal Kishore,Vandana Pulhani, J Radioanal Nucl Chem, DOI 10.1007/s10967-014-3133-y, Published online: 13 April 2014, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 302,745–746.

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh (2001),Quinalizarin Anchored on

Amberlite XAD-2 : A New Matrix for Solid -Phase Extraction of Metal

Ions for Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Determination”, Fresenius

J. Anal. Chem., 370, 377-383 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh (2001), Pyrogallol Immobilized Amberlite XAD-2 : A Newly Designed Collector for Enrichment of Metal

Ions Prior to their Determination by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry”,Mikrochimica Acta, 137, 127-135 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh ( 2000 ),Metal Ion Enrichment on Amberlite XAD-2 Functionalized with Tiron: Analytical Applications.Analyst, Vol.,125, pp.1221-1226 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh ( 2000 ),Amberlite XAD-2 Functionlized with o-Aminophenol : Synthesis and Applications as

Extractant for Copper(II), Cobalt(II), Cadmium(II), Nickel(II), Zinc(II) and Lead(II), Talanta, 51, 1187-1196.

Article Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the d...

It is extremely sad and bad situation for researchers. I think such publications are just to justify the funding. The authors of articles have large number of publications, they should clarify the points raised on RG.

I completely agree with Miranda Yeoh.

The commodification of sciences have affected not only the quality of articles published in this journals but also the participation in scientific meetings. The registration and accomodation fees have increased with a lower time for interaction with others researchers and scientific discussion. This made practically unavailable these meeting for third countries researchers. 

Regrettably, the editors of predatory journals follow the policy of their owners, so they practically work for reaping monetary gains which are encouraging scientific misconduct. However, this does not automatically demerits to all publications nor reviewers that may appear in these journals and do their jobs honestly and we should distinguish / differenciate between scientific problems and language editing.

Dear Prof. Rathore,

Thanks for the invitation.

Unfortunately, if a thorough researcher makes a brief investigation firstly on his field of research, with regard to the publications in various Journals, he will confirm not few mistakes of greater or smaller importance.

This situation, either the Editor has been informed or not, raises a lot of questions about the credibility of both authors and Journals. In any case, the impact of such unpleasant condition may be proved more detrimental to the reputation of authors than the reputation of relative Journals. And this may be demonstrated by the fact that these Journals continue to exist and publish. Besides, this market is very profitable and good manners may not count so much.

I do not agree at all with this established situation.

sir

thanks for providing me opportunity to express my views regarding the same. I am also feeling somewhat like this

the journal editors are publishing the work of authors known to them directly or indirectly, they are not concerned about the language or the work of the manuscript. but i think this is not for the first time

even our renowned scientists have gone through the same

if you have forgot the same, let me remind you the story of Bose Einstein theory developed by bose and was not recognised well till the author has not requested Einstein to help him out

copy of email:

To [email protected]

02/18/15 at 3:07 PM

If you cannot see this page properly, please click here.

Dear Dr. Rathore,

We are pleased to inform that your manuscript "Letter to the Editor: Comments related to the publication by Bhangare RC, Tiwari M, Ajmal PY, Sahu SK, Pandit GG. Laser flourimetric analysis of uranium in water from Vishakhapatnam and estimation of health risk. Radiat Prot Environ 2013;36:128-32." is provisionally accepted. You would receive an edited version of article in about 2-3 weeks from now for a final check and correction.

The journal does not charge for submission, processing or publication of manuscripts and except for color reproduction of photographs.

We thank you for submitting your valuable research work to Radiation Protection and Environment.

With warm personal regards,

Yours sincerely,

Pushparaja

Radiation Protection and Environment

Message sent on Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Please add [email protected] as a contact in your E-mail client to ensure that this mail is not considered as a junk mail.

At a later stage:

To [email protected]

CC [email protected]

BCC [email protected]

02/21/15 at 8:37 AM

Dear Editor,

I disapprove this version of proof RPE_62_14R3 . This is not clear from this version of proof , who has raised the query and who has replied. This is incorrect . The cited references in this version of the proof are misleading.

I request you to kindly publish my query ( along with my name) along with the cited references and author's response ( authors address: responded by the corresponding author of the manuscript) along with the cited references .

Kindly read my version( 343399042_RPE-14).

Kindly edit it again carefully.

Regards

Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

[email protected]

Later:

To [email protected]

CC [email protected]

BCC [email protected]

02/21/15 at 8:57 PM

Dear Editor,

I strongly disagree with the author's reply on the significant figures of results.

Authors are advised to read the standard books/literature on the significant figures of results. Results should be rounded off to one decimal place at ppb level, Say 1.4 ppb.

The references cited by authors are highly misleading . (I have already commented about them. There results are non-reproducible/ incorrect and are misleading. There procedure is wrong. )

As per the prevalent practice of publishing author's response and comments on the author's publication is very common and is being adopted by international journals.In my opinion, in-correct or highly misleading author's response should not be published.It will be more advisable, if such publications are retracted. My purpose is to bring to the kind notice of the Experts/Readers to kindly review and suggest various corrective measures to discourage such Scientific Misconduct/ Human errors.

This is for your immediate kind attention please.

Regards,

Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

--- On Sat, 21/2/15, d r wrote:

> From: d r

> Subject: Disapprove this version of proof : [RPE]:Article for final proof

> To: [email protected]

> Cc: [email protected]

> Date: Saturday, 21 February, 2015, 8:37 AM

> Dear Editor,

>

> I disapprove this version of

> proof RPE_62_14R3 . This is not clear from this version of

> proof , who has raised the query and who has replied. This

> is incorrect . The cited references in this version of the

> proof are misleading.

>

> I

> request you to kindly publish my query ( along with my name)

> along with the cited references and author's response

> ( authors address: responded by the corresponding author of

> the manuscript) along with the cited references .

>

>

> Kindly

> read my version( 343399042_RPE-14).

> Kindly

> edit it again carefully.

>

>

> Regards

>

>

> Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

>

> [email protected]

> --------------------------------------------

> On Fri, 20/2/15, Radiation Protection and

> Environment

> wrote:

>

> Subject: [RPE]:Article for

> final proof

> To: [email protected]

> Date: Friday, 20 February, 2015, 5:54 PM

>

> If you cannot see this

> page

> properly, please click

> here.

>

> Dear

> Sir,

> Please check the last page and reply

> on pending query by

> next 24 hrs.

> Kinldy write at [email protected],

> if you

> have any concern.

>

>

>

> Regards,

> Hussain Shaikh

> Production

> Editor

> + 91 (0)22 6115 1842 tel.

Finally after keeping it pending for more than one year, my article ( query ) was withdrawn by Editor :

From: d r [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 AM

To: Shaikh, Hussain

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Submitting again manuscript No.RPE_62_14. : Strongly disagree with the authors response on significant figures of results: Disapprove this version of proof : [RPE]:Article for final proof

Dear Dr. Hussain,

This is as per my telephonic talk with you related with the above manuscript No. RPE_62_14.

I am attaching again this manuscript as desired by you and copy right.

I am also attaching a file JRNC-2014.pdf  for your reference.  Query and authors response should be published separately but simultaneously in the same issue of the journal.

Regards,

Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

email: [email protected]

--- On Sat, 21/2/15, d r wrote:

> From: d r

> Subject: Strongly disagree with the authors response on significant

> figures of results: Disapprove this version of proof : [RPE]:Article

> for final proof

> To: [email protected]

> Cc: [email protected]

> Date: Saturday, 21 February, 2015, 8:57 PM Dear Editor,

>

> I strongly disagree with the author's reply on the significant figures

> of results.

> Authors are advised to read the standard books/literature on the

> significant figures of results. Results should be rounded off to one

> decimal place at ppb level,  Say 1.4 ppb.

> 

> The references cited by authors are highly misleading . (I have

> already commented about them. There results are non-reproducible/

> incorrect and are misleading. There procedure is wrong. )

>

>  As per the prevalent practice of publishing author's response and

> comments on the author's publication is very common and is being

> adopted by international journals.In my opinion, in-correct or highly

> misleading author's response should not be published.It will be more

> advisable, if such publications are retracted. My purpose is to bring

> to the kind notice of the Experts/Readers to kindly review and suggest

> various corrective measures to discourage such Scientific Misconduct/

> Human errors.

>

> This is for your immediate kind attention please.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 21/2/15, d r

> wrote:

>

> > From: d r

> > Subject: Disapprove this version of proof :

> [RPE]:Article for final proof

> > Cc: [email protected]

> > Date: Saturday, 21 February, 2015, 8:37 AM Dear Editor,

> >

> > I disapprove this version of

> > proof  RPE_62_14R3 . This is not clear from this

> version of

> > proof , who has raised the query and who has replied.

> This

> > is incorrect . The cited references in this version of

> the

> > proof are misleading.

> >

> > I

> > request you to kindly publish my query ( along with my

> name)

> > along with the cited references  and author's

> response

> > ( authors address: responded by the corresponding

> author of

> > the manuscript) along with the cited references .

> >

> >  

> > Kindly

> > read my version( 343399042_RPE-14).

> > Kindly

> > edit it again carefully.

> >

> >

> > Regards

> >

> >

> > Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE

> >

> > [email protected]

> > --------------------------------------------

> > On Fri, 20/2/15, Radiation Protection and Environment

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> >  Subject: [RPE]:Article for

> > final proof

> >  To: [email protected]

> >  Date: Friday, 20 February, 2015, 5:54 PM

> > 

> >  If you cannot see this

> > page

> >  properly, please click

> >  here.

> > 

> >  Dear

> > Sir,

> >  Please check the last page and reply  on pending query by

> >  next 24 hrs.

> >  Kinldy write at [email protected],  if you

> >  have any concern.

> >

> >

> > 

> >  Regards,

> >  Hussain Shaikh

> >  Production

> > Editor

> >  + 91 (0)22 6115 1842 tel.

> > 

> >  Message sent on Friday,

> > February

> >  20, 2015

> >  Please

> > add [email protected]

> > as a contact in your

> >  E-mail client to

> > ensure that this mail is not considered as

> >

> > a junk mail.

> > 

> >  ---- END OF

> > MESSAGE ----

> > 

> > 

> >

Reply Reply to All Forward More

Shaikh, Hussain To d r

CC Shaikh, Hussain

Jan 18 at 3:32 PM

Dear Dr Rathore,

Your article has Withdrawn.

Please let me know if you have any concern, I will be happy to help you.

Hussain Shaikh

Production Editor

Health Learning, Research & Practice

Office + 91 (0)22 6115 1810

Cannot you piblish it in another journal ?

Dear @Saad Motahhir ,

No. These are  my comments on the scientific content of the published manuscript and to be addressed /published  in the  same journal for the awareness to the all other scholars and necessary correction therein.

The Editor of the journal: Radiation Protection and Environment  has ultimately promoted Scientific misconduct.

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..

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.

Article Highly Sensitive and Selective Method for Detecting Ultratra...

Working Paper Comments on: Highly sensitive and selective method for detec...

Institutions and journals both have important duties relating to research and publication misconduct. Institutions are responsible for the conduct of their researchers and for encouraging a healthy research environment. Journals are responsible for the conduct of their editors, for safeguarding the research record, and for ensuring the reliability of everything they publish. It is therefore important for institutions and journals to communicate and collaborate effectively on cases relating to research integrity...

http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cooperation-between-research-institutions-and-journals-research-integrity

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

I have read the paper (Chaturvedi etal., 2015) and cited references very carefully.  This is a case-study paper, in which RAMESH BABU, VELDI ( second author) is the corresponding author. On thorough search on google/google scholar/scopus/research gate and other searches, it has been found that this publication is based on his earlier conference paper( Ramesh Babu, 2010) presentation in 2010 as follows:

Page. 78 PREVIEW AUGUST 2010 ASEG-PESA 2010 Conference Handbook

ABSTRACTS

ASEG-PESA 2010 Conference Handbook AUGUST 2010

SPATIAL MODELLING OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GEOSCIENTIFIC DATA FOR URANIUM EXPLORATION OVER THE KUNJAR-DARJING BASIN, ORISSA – A GIS

APPROACH

V. Ramesh Babu*, A. K. Chaturvedi, A. Markandeyulu, P. K. Srivastava and A. Chaki

Airborne Survey and Remote Sensing Group, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad, India

[email protected]

Application of Geographical Information System (GIS) for identifying the spatial locations of target areas for uranium exploration using multi-disciplinary geoscientific data is presented in this paper. The data sets used in this study are Airborne Gamma Ray Spectrometric (AGRS), Aeromagnetic (AM),Satellite images, regional ground gravity and geochemical surveys over one of the promising mobile Proterozoic Kunjar-Darjing basins to the west of Singhbum Uranium Province (SUP), Orissa, India. All these data sets are processed and interpreted independently in terms of geology based on characteristics such as intensity, frequency and texture of the images generated. Various ratio maps generated from AGRS data were used as training points for spatial modeling by building relationships (topology) with the structures and geology interpreted from the magnetic and gravity datasets. This study shows that integrating the geological, geophysical, geochemical and other geodata in a GIS environment provides valuable guidelines for geological mapping as well as identifying target areas for uranium exploration.

Note: This paper was presented in international conference with official permission as per official records .

Objection No1: The name of the co-author: P.K.Srivastava (from AMD)  has been removed and the name of another co-author: R. Pavanaguru( other than AMD: Emeritus Professor, Department of Geology, Osmania University, Hyderabad )  has been added and sequence of co-authors( V. Ramesh Babu and A. K. Chaturvedi) changed. The co-author-Anjan Chaki is Ex-Director, AMD and Raja Rammna Fellow of DAE. Such addition or deletion of co-authorship without any scientific contribution is violation of ethics for scientific publication and its publication in  Journal Geological Society of India, Vol.,85,June 2015, pp.657-672

 In both these papers, V. Ramesh Babu is the corresponding author.  Moreover, there is no reference of conference paper cited in this publication. It is clearly a case of plagiarism and fraud.

Objection No2: On further careful search on google/google scholar/scopus/research gate and other searches, it has been found that this is the only paper originated from the Ph.D.Thesis of Mr.Anand Kumar Chaturvedi  under the Guidance of Prof. R.Pavanaguru ( Retd. Professor) in the thesis titled:

“Integrated Geological, Geochemical, Geophysical, Remote Sensing, and GIS Studies on the Controls of uranium Mineralisation in the Proterozoic Kunjar - Darjing Basin in Odisha, India” for the award of Ph.D. degree in Geology, Department of Geology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 2013”.( Of course, this is not under your control).

It is worth to be stated here that Mr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi is holding Senior position: Additional Director ( Research & Development), Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India,  Hyderabad.

Based on material evidence, It is clearly a case of plagiarism and fraud.

Based on material evidences, It is  requested to the Editor, Journal Geological Society of India, to take appropriate strong action such as asking the authors to withdraw the paper with warning that the journal would ban the publication of any paper from any of the authors and the matter would be reported to their employer(s) for suitable action, etc. 

References

CHATURVEDI, ANAND KUMAR, RAMESH BABU VELDI , MARKANDEYULU AMULOTU, R.PAVANAGURU and CHAKI ANJAN (2015) The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha, Jour. Geol. Soc. India, vol., 85, pp.657-672

  RAMESH BABU VELDI , CHATURVEDI, ANAND KUMAR, MARKANDEYULU AMULOTU, SRIVASTAVA, P.K. and CHAKI ANJAN (2010) SPATIAL MODELLING OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GEOSCIENTIFIC DATA FOR URANIUM EXPLORATION OVER THE KUNJAR-DARJING BASIN, ORISSA – A GIS APPROACH,

 ASEG-PESA 2010 Conference Handbook AUGUST 2010, Abstract. p.78

Comments on “A facile method of synthesizing ammonia modified graphene oxide for efficient removal of uranyl ions from aqueous medium by Swati Verma and Raj Kumar Dutta, RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 77192–77203”.

D.P.S. Rathore*

Former Senior Scientist, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research, Department of Atomic Energy,150/8,  Shiprapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020,Rajasthan, India.

Email: [email protected]

I have read the above cited paper1, references and available published literature on the above subject very carefully. Based on my experience, I would like to share my observations and comments on the above cited manuscript.

As stated in the manuscript, in section, 2.4. Batch adsorption studies, on page no.77193, quote ‘ A stock solution of 1000 mg L-1 of uranium was prepared by dissolving 2.11 g of UO2 (NO3)2. 6H2O in 1 L of DI water. Solutions of different concentrations of uranyl ions were prepared by diluting the uranium stock solution in de-ionized water’ unquote. This procedure  for the preparation of stock solution of uranium and working standard is incorrect. The reliability/validity of uranium measurement will dependent on the standards. The stock solution of uranium is always prepared in de-ionized water containing acid to prevent loss of uranium. As per the literature 2-4, the recommended primary standard is a 1000 ppm U  ( mg/l) uranyl nitrate solution made up with 5% nitric acid ( 2.11 g UO2 (NO3)2.6H2O per litre ). This is diluted x100 and a further x10 to form 10 ppm (mg/l) ( in 0.05% HNO3) and 1 ppm (mg/l )(0.005% HNO3) respectively. The concentration of uranium in this stock solution was verified using the method of Davies and Gray4.

As stated in section, 3.2. Comparative study of uranyl ion adsorption capacities of NH3-GO, GO, on page 77195 of the manuscript, quote “The common interfering cations considered in this study were Ca 2+ (75 mg L-1), Mg 2+ (30 mg L-1), K+ (50 mg L-1), Na+ (200 mg L-1), Pb 2+ (0.1 mg L-1), Fe 2+ (0.3 mg L-1) and Zn 2+ (5 mg L-1) and anions like CO3 2- (300 mg L-1), HCO3- (300 mg L-1), Cl- (250 mg L-1) and SO4 2- (200 mg L-1), where the concentrations of these interfering species are given in the bracket as per the permissible limits by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)42 and WHO.3” unquote.  The range of  major cations and anions in natural waters, are as given below: Ca 2+( 4-4000), Mg 2+ (1-1350), Na+ (0-10,500), K+ (1-399), HCO3- (0-1000), Cl- (1-19000), SO4 2- (0-2,700),NO3- (1-15) and also reported in the literature5. The effect of potential interferent,  Fe 3+, V 5+ and humic acid are missing. In order to demonstrate the potential applicability of the system for uranium removal in natural water, authors are advised to clearly tabulate the tolerance limits of major cations, anions  and trace elements studied for the present system.

From table1: it gives no such comparison of salient feature of analytical performance of the adsorbent. The application of the proposed adsorbent for the removal of uranium from natural water samples are needed to validate its applicability.

A comparison of analytical performance of the proposed adsorbent for uranium removal, should clearly demonstrate the analytical performance in terms of : simplicity, rapidity, ease of use, sorption capacity, kinetics of sorption, Limit of preconcentration, preconcentrations factors, stabilty of adsorbent, re-usability, eco-friendly, cost-effective, easy synthesis, etc for the real applications in natural diverse water sample matrices. Such comparison of analytical performance will give direction for future research.

I request that the authors of the subject article kindly further document the reliability of their findings in view of the concerns expressed herein.

References

1.Swati Verma and Raj Kumar Dutta , RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 77192–77203.

2. Robbins, J.C. , Castledine, C. Kostiak, W. , Analytical Procedures for UA-3 Uranium          

   Analysis—Applications Manual, Scintrex Limited, Ontario, Canada, 1985 Oct.

3. Editorial Staff, Analytical Techniques in Uranium Exploration and Ore Processing,Technical      

     Report Series no. 341, IAEA, 1982.

4. FOR THE DETERMINATION OF URANIUM

www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/335168

5.W. Davies, W. Gray, Talanta 1964, 11, 1203-1211

6. Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution     

    groundwater.ucdavis.edu/files/136273.pdf

On Monday, 24 October 2016 8:45 PM, Lieke van Schaaijk wrote:

Dear Dr. RATHORE,

Thank you for your email.

We have received your emails about the publication titled "The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha".

We have forwarded your query to our responsible Publishing Colleague for further assistance. Future complaints can be send to [email protected].

With kind regards,

Lieke van Schaaijk

Transfer Desk

Pimentel, Rochiel

To [email protected]

CC Transfer Desk

Today at 5:16

Dear Dr. Rathore,

Thank you so much for your email.

Upon verification, the status of the manuscript entitled " Comments on: The Role of GIS in Spatial Modeling of Multi-disciplinary Geoscientific Data for Uranium Exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing Basin, Odisha " is currently Final Decision Reject.

If there is anything we could assist you with, please feel free to let us know.

Kind regards,

Rochiel

ROCHIEL PIMENTEL (Ms)

Springer

Journals Editorial Office (JEO)

JEO Assistant

---

tel (outside the US): +1-818-665-3733 l +1-818-665-3734

tel (within the US): (818)-665-3733 l (818)-665-3734

[email protected]

http://www.springer.com/

d r

To Pimentel, Rochiel

Today at 8:11

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

Pimentel, Rochiel

To d r

Today at 10:56

Dear Dr. Rathore,

Thank you so much for your response.

Our sincere apologies regarding your manuscript # DESK-D-16-06251. Please be informed that I already forwarded your concern to the Editor to seek for an advised.

I will get back to you as soon as I receive a response from them.

Kind regards,

Rochiel

ROCHIEL PIMENTEL (Ms)

Springer

Journals Editorial Office (JEO)

JEO Assistant

---

tel (outside the US): +1-818-665-3733 l +1-818-665-3734

tel (within the US): (818)-665-3733 l (818)-665-3734

[email protected]

http://www.springer.com/

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

Tougher action needed in the fight against scientific fraud!

What is there to stop someone publishing scientific research that is based on no actual research or uses fake evidence to support their claims?...

The traditional regulatory mechanisms and sanctions, in conjunction with newer initiatives to more closely monitor research, will still be the primary mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of scientific research...

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-tougher-action-scientific-fraud.html

Dear Dr. Ljubomir Jacić,

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.

Eric Slater To 'd r'

CC 'Sweedler, Jonathan V' 'Keith Vitense'

15 Dec at 9:23 PM

Dear Dr. Rathore,

This is in reply to your email below.

While your concern is understood, unfortunately, as a matter of ACS Policy, there is nothing further that can be done.  The decision of ACS journal editors is final in these matters.  The ACS Committee on Ethics is not an adjudicatory body, and as such, has no authority to review the decisions of ACS journal editors.  Additionally, speaking to you in my role as a copyright attorney (employed by ACS in the Office of the Secretary & General Counsel) who works mainly with the ACS Publications Division, these are matters left to the discretion of ACS journal editors, and we defer to their expertise in such matters.

Based on the foregoing, I refer you to the email you received from Dr. Jonathan Sweedler on 25 October 2016, effectively closing the matter.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Eric S. Slater, Esq.

Senior Manager, Copyright, Permissions, & Licensing

Office of Secretary & General Counsel

American Chemical Society

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

T: 202-872-4367 | F: 202-776-8112 | [email protected]

There are some interesting comments on Retraction Watch on this link.                  http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/

Dr D.P.S.RATHORE April 23, 2017 at 4:16 am

d r

To CHITTARANJAN SINHA

22 Mar at 10:13 PM

Dear Dr. C.Sinha,

Thanks for your reply.

Your remarks/comments -JICS is not interested to publish Letter to Editors for invited articles. or We have reviewed your criticism and contacted Authors. Whole things are discussed in an Editorial Board and with Indian Chemical Society Administration. It is opined that Issue is dedicated to 50 years of NML, Jamsedpur India; articles had been invited and reviewed by a Reviewers Board constituted by ICS and NML. Board had decided the publishing quality of the manuscript. So, Journal of Indian Chemical Society does not entertain any criticism on this matter and hence the matter is closed. Thank you for your effort. Sincerely yours C. Sinha Editor, Inorganic & Analytical Chemistry Section, JICS or Dear Sir Letters to the Editor are to be sent to the Office of the Indian Chemical Society directly and are not required to be uploaded through website. Hence, these are returned herewith or Dear Author We have not received any comments on your critic writing after a long inquire. So we do not able to publish your letter. Yours truly C. Sinha Editor (HQ) or I regret to inform you that your manuscript (Ms. No. 2293) is not recommended for publication. The reviewer’s comment is given below. I further apologize for the inordinate delay in processing this manuscript. Thank you very much. With regards K. Ismail, Editor Reviewer’s comments: I do not recommend this comment for publication, because the language used herein does not appear to be appropriate for a publishable manuscript. or ICS Team has decided not to publish any Letter. Editor .

I wish to state that all the reply stated as above are unscientific and promoter of scientific misconduct including plagiarism. Editor should not promote such unscientific activities.

I have already taken up this matter with President, ICS and will continue to raise such issues for the growth of science.

One such my comments :

Separation and preconcentration of rare earth elements in geological materials using used tea leaves and their determination by ICP-OES, Letter to the Editor, has been published in: Journal- Indian Chemical Society 94(1):111-114 · January 2017.

Regards,

Dr.D.P.S.RATHORE, M.Sc., M.Phil., Ph.D., FICS, FRSC

Email: [email protected]

Recently published:

1.Comments on: Simultaneous Separation and Preconcentration of Rare Earth Elements on Activated Carbon for its Determination by ICP-OES in Beneficiation Products,Rathore, J Chromatogr Sep Tech 2017, 8:2

DOI: 10.4172/2157-7064.1000357

2.Comments on Chemical Analysis of Limestone and Dolomite Using

Capillary Electrophoresis,Rathore, J Chromatogr Sep Tech 2017, 8:2

DOI: 10.4172/2157-7064.1000359

Recently published::

1.Separation and preconcentration of rare earth elements in geological materials

using used tea leaves and their determination by ICP-OES,LETTER TO THE EDITOR,J. Indian Chem. Soc.,

Vol. 94, January 2017, pp. 111-114

2.Comments on: “Highly sensitive and selective method for detecting ultra-trace levels of aqueous uranyl ions in water 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.Internal Chemistry Review, Vol. 2 Issue 1, April 2017.