We heard that The Genius's contract was renewed. Then we heard he resigned. Strange because he was eager and happy to stay. We wonder if he resign voluntarily or pressured to resign. There is also rumor that if he resign, some people will be safe from taken action. Trade off lah.
Actually, we feel a bit sorry for The Genius. People used him for their personal interest (Nak capai KPI, mah. Nak cepat naik pangkat, mah. Nak nampak hebat senarai paper panjang berjela, mah.). Now he is no longer useful, they abandon him. Where got honor among thieves.
If in the beginning someone, may be his former PhD supervisor, said to him: 'No, this is wrong. You shouldn't do this.', then all this $--- wouldn't happen. Instead, certain people in faculty management encourage, supported and protect him. A few people who dare said they doubt his amazing achievement was accused of professional jealousy.
So it looks like the clowns at the root of the corruption will get away and continue to masquerade as professors.
Thursday 8 December 2016
Monday 5 December 2016
Stop laughing at UM
We hear academicians from other universities sniggering on The Genius & Co. They are laughing becausethat UM - the oldest (best?) university in Malaysia - has such unethical researchers. Well, we have news for them. UM is not the only one publishing in this way. UTM, UKM and even UiTM also has academicians publishing with The Genius. Only UPM and USM are free from this scandal. You don’t believe me? Well, see the list:
UKM
Only USM and UPM are still clean.
UTM
- Day of the year-based prediction of horizontal global solar radiation by a neural network auto-regressive model, by Gani, A; Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Khorasanizadeh, Hossein; Danesh, Amir Seyed; Piri, Jamshid); Ismail, Zuraini); Zamani, Mazdak, THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY Volume: 125 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 679-689 Published: AUG 2016
- A hybrid SVM-FFA method for prediction of monthly mean global solar radiation, Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Mohammadi, Kasra; Tong, Chong Wen; Zamani, Mazdak; Motamedi, Shervin; Ch, Sudheer, THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY Volume: 125 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 53-65 Published: JUL 2016
- Temperature-based estimation of global solar radiation using soft computing methodologies, Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Danesh, Amir Seyed; Abdullah, Mohd Shahidan ; Zamani, Mazdak, THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY Volume: 125 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 101-112 Published: JUL 2016
- A Novel Method to Water Level Prediction using RBF and FFA, Soleymani, Seyed Ahmad; Goudarzi, Shidrokh; Anisi, Mohammad Hossein; Hassan, Wan Haslina; Idris, Mohd Yamani Idna; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin); Noor, Noorzaily Mohamed; Ahmedy, Ismail, WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Volume: 30 Issue: 9 Pages: 3265-3283 Published: JUL 2016
- Extreme learning machine for prediction of heat load in district heating systems, Sajjadi, Shahin; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Alizamir, Meysam; Yee, PL; Mansor, Z ; Manaf, AA et al., ENERGY AND
BUILDINGS Volume: 122 Pages: 222-227 Published: JUN 15 2016 - Application of extreme learning machine for prediction of aqueous solubility of carbon dioxide, Mohammadian, Erfan; Motamedi, Shervin; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Hashim, Roslan; Junin, Radzuan; Roy, Chandrabhushan); Azdarpour, Amin, ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES Volume: 75 Issue: 3 Article Number: 215 Published: FEB 2016
- Potential of neuro-fuzzy methodology to estimate noise level of wind turbines, Nikolic, Vlastimir; Petkovic, Dalibor; Yee, Por Lip; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Zamani, Mazdak; Cojbasic, Zarko; Motamedi, Shervin, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING Volume: 66-67 Pages: 715-722 Published: JAN 2016
- Transport and retention of engineered Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2 nanoparticles through various sedimentary rocks, Bayat, Ali Esfandyari; Junin, Radzuan; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Chong, Wen Tong, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS Volume: 5 Article Number: 14264 Published: SEP 16 2015
- Heat load prediction in district heating systems with adaptive neuro-fuzzy method, Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Petkovic, Dalibor; Enayatifar, Rasul; Abdullah, Abdul Hanan; Markovic, Dusan; Lee, Malrey; Ahmad, Rodina, RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS Volume: 48 Pages: 760-767 Published: AUG 2015
- Predicting the wind power density based upon extreme learning machine, Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Yee, Por Lip; Petkovic, Dalibor; Zamani, Mazdak; Ch, Sudheer, ENERGY Volume: 86 Pages: 232-239 Published: JUN 15 2015
- Influence of clay particles on Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles transport and retention through limestone porous media: measurements and mechanisms, Bayat, AE (Bayat, Ali Esfandyari)[ 1 ] ; Junin, Radzuan; Mohsin, R (Mohsin, Rahmat)[ 2 ] ; Hokmabadi, M (Hokmabadi, Mehrdad)[ 1 ] ; Shamshirband, S (Shamshirband, Shahaboddin), JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH Volume: 17 Issue: 5 Article Number: 219 Published: MAY 15 2015
UKM
- Identifying the most significant input parameters for predicting global solar radiation using an ANFIS selection procedure, Mohammadi, Kasra; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Kamsin, Amirrudin; Mansor, Z et al., RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS Volume: 63 Pages: 423-434 Published: SEP 2016
- Extreme learning machine for prediction of heat load in district heating systems, Sajjadi, Shahin; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Alizamir, Meysam; Yee, PL ; Mansor, Z; Manaf, AA et al. , ENERGY AND BUILDINGS Volume: 122 Pages: 222-227 Published: JUN 15 2016
- Using ANFIS for selection of more relevant parameters to predict dew point temperature, Mohammadi, K (Mohammadi, Kasra)[ 1 ] ; Shamshirband, S ; Petkovic, D ; Yee, PL; Mansor, Zulkefli, APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING Volume: 96 Pages: 311-319 Published: MAR 5 2016
- Estimating building energy consumption using extreme learning machine method, Naji, S ; Keivani, A ; Shamshirband, S ; Alengaram, UJ ; Jumaat, MZ ; Mansor, Z; Lee, M, ENERGY Volume: 97 Pages: 506-516 Published: FEB 15 2016
- Co-FQL: Anomaly detection using cooperative fuzzy Q-learning in network, Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Daghighi, Babak; Anuar, Nor Badrul; Kiah, Miss Laiha Mat; Patel, Ahmed; Abraham, Ajith, JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT & FUZZY SYSTEMS Volume: 28 Issue: 3 Pages: 1345-1357 Published: 2015
- Cooperative game theoretic approach using fuzzy Q-learning for detecting and preventing intrusions in wireless sensor networks, Shamshirband, S (Shamshirband, Shahaboddin)[ 1,2 ] ; Patel, Ahmed; Anuar, NB (Anuar, Nor Badrul)[ 2 ] ; Kiah, MLM (Kiah, Miss Laiha Mat)[ 2 ] ; Abraham, A (Abraham, Ajith), ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Volume: 32 Pages: 228-241 Published: JUN 2014
- An appraisal and design of a multi-agent system based cooperative wireless intrusion detection computational intelligence technique, Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Anuar, Nor Badrul; Kiah, Miss Laiha Mat; Patel, Ahmed, ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Volume: 26 Issue: 9 Pages: 2105-2127 Published: OCT 2013
- Clustering project management for drought regions determination: A case study in Serbia, Shamshirband, S ; Gocic, M ; Petkovic, D ; Javidnia, H; Ab Hamid, SH ; Mansor, Z; Qasem, SN, AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY Volume: 200 Pages: 5765 Published: JAN 15 2015
UiTM
- A simulation model for visitors' thermal comfort at urban public squares using non-probabilistic binary-linear classifier through soft-computing methodologies, Kariminia, Shahab; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Hashim, Roslan; Saberi, Ahmadreza et al., ENERGY Volume: 101 Pages: 568-580 Published: APR 15 2016
- Evaluating the legibility of decorative arabic scripts for Sultan Alauddin mosque using an enhanced soft-computing hybrid algorithm, Saberi, Ahmadreza; Motamedi, Shervin; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; et al., COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR Volume: 55 Pages: 127-144 Part: A Published: FEB 2016
- Comparative study of clustering methods for wake effect analysis in wind farm, Al-Shammari, Eiman Tamah; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Petkovic, Dalibor; Ros Suraya Taher, et al., ENERGY Volume: 95 Pages: 573-579 Published: JAN 15 2016
- Precipitation Estimation Using Support Vector Machine with Discrete Wavelet Transform, Shenify, Mohamed; Danesh, Amir Seyed; Gocic, Milan; Ros Surya Taher, et al., WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Pages: 641-652 Published: JAN 2016
- A review of mobile pervasive learning: Applications and issues, Shuib, Liyana; Shamshirband, Shahaboddin; Ismail, Mohammad Hafiz, COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR Volume: 46 Pages: 239-244 Published: MAY 2015
Only USM and UPM are still clean.
Friday 18 November 2016
How the collaboration work
The Genius said that he got the data for his papers from a collaborator. We managed to track down the collaborator and this is what happened when an editor met with this collaborator.
So The Gwnius told the collaborator that people like A. Gani and MLM Kiah are students working on the project?
So The Gwnius told the collaborator that people like A. Gani and MLM Kiah are students working on the project?
Saturday 24 September 2016
The rumor
We heard rumor that UM top management is going to investigate publication misconduct after some mat salleh writes about publication misconduct in an international blog. If true, it is good and sad.
Good because they're finally investigating.
Sad because it takes some mat salleh to write before they investigate. When us locals write, it doesn't matter but when mat salleh write, it matter. Now is 2016 but there are still jakuns in awe of mat salleh.
Sad also because we heard that the investigation will focus on a certain international staff and all blame will be put on him. So the local 'researchers' will get away. Why the double standard? Why are they so sayang and protect the local mastermind and con artist?
Don't know how much of this rumor is true, so we wait and see.
May be we should contact that mat salleh and tell him about the double standard. May be if he writes about it top management will investigate and take action on EVERYONE involve in misconduct.
Good because they're finally investigating.
Sad because it takes some mat salleh to write before they investigate. When us locals write, it doesn't matter but when mat salleh write, it matter. Now is 2016 but there are still jakuns in awe of mat salleh.
Sad also because we heard that the investigation will focus on a certain international staff and all blame will be put on him. So the local 'researchers' will get away. Why the double standard? Why are they so sayang and protect the local mastermind and con artist?
Don't know how much of this rumor is true, so we wait and see.
May be we should contact that mat salleh and tell him about the double standard. May be if he writes about it top management will investigate and take action on EVERYONE involve in misconduct.
Wednesday 14 September 2016
What editors say
When we informed UM top management the we are suspicious of research and publication misconduct, they said there is nothing to investigate because we don't provide evidence.
That is why we analyzed papers by The Genius & Co to find evidence. We contact journal editors to report what we found. The top management want evidence, we're giving evidence.
Don't accuse us of embarrassing university. You the one ruining UM reputation by not doing anything.
Below is what editors we contacted say.
That is why we analyzed papers by The Genius & Co to find evidence. We contact journal editors to report what we found. The top management want evidence, we're giving evidence.
Don't accuse us of embarrassing university. You the one ruining UM reputation by not doing anything.
Below is what editors we contacted say.
Friday 9 September 2016
Spot the difference
Let's play a game. Can you find the difference between this papers? Easier to compare if you open in different tabs.
- Modulation Transfer Function Estimation of Optical Lens System by Adaptive NeuroFuzzy Methodology1
- Adaptive neuro-fuzzy prediction of modulation transfer function of optical lens system
- Evaluation of modulation transfer function of optical lens system by support vector regression methodologies – A comparative study
Monday 15 August 2016
The threat
At faculty meetng on 5 August 2016, the subject of blog etikadium.blogspot.my was raise by a faculty member. In response to this, Dean threaten to take blogger 1) Disciplinary Action, 2) Criminal Action, 3) Legal Action and 4) Civil Action if blogger did not take blog down within 7 days.
When another faculty member said, what was accuse in blog is serious and blog had been read by 5000 people, the Faculty should investigate and respond to accusations, since good name of faculty involve. Dean replied that he had carried investigation and everything in blog not true. Editor has also cleared some people but don't know which editor he refers to.
So, person who has interest in this issue, I.e. Dean is protecting himself, by not authorising a formal investigation also pressed to do so by some faculty members.
Isn't it irony? The person accused of misconduct investigated the accusation and declared no misconduct.
Isn't it abuse of power when he uses his position as dean to threaten us?
This is why we are anonymous. People involved in this matter are in faculty management and are chummy with UM top management. Instead of investigating the accusation, people are more busy investigating who write this blog.
When another faculty member said, what was accuse in blog is serious and blog had been read by 5000 people, the Faculty should investigate and respond to accusations, since good name of faculty involve. Dean replied that he had carried investigation and everything in blog not true. Editor has also cleared some people but don't know which editor he refers to.
So, person who has interest in this issue, I.e. Dean is protecting himself, by not authorising a formal investigation also pressed to do so by some faculty members.
Isn't it irony? The person accused of misconduct investigated the accusation and declared no misconduct.
Isn't it abuse of power when he uses his position as dean to threaten us?
This is why we are anonymous. People involved in this matter are in faculty management and are chummy with UM top management. Instead of investigating the accusation, people are more busy investigating who write this blog.
Tuesday 2 August 2016
Sunday 31 July 2016
Let’s Talk Wind Turbine – How The Genius & Co Recyles Papers
WIND TURBINE
This article discusses how a prolific author in an established institution managed to produce over 200 articles within 3 years as an academic.
First we look at the following three publications:
These publications all have one thing in common: wind turbine
SUBJECT
The objective of Paper 1 was to capture maximum energy from the wind by predicting the optimal values of the wind turbine reaction torque. To build an effective prediction model, the authors have decided to use polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) and have applied them as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) for prediction of wind turbine reaction torque. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by their proposed approach. Results show that SVRs can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models.
Paper 2 is still on wind power and still using RBF dan SVR to estimate the optimal power coefficient value of the wind turbines. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR approach in compare to other soft computing methodologies.
Nothing much was discussed about the data and how they were obtained! We are very certain the same data were used for both papers!
So what is the contribution of the second paper?As far as computer science is concerned, the findings of the second paper is the same as that of the first! What a waste of taxpayers money funding this research! What a waste of subscribers money buying journals that recycles facts and findings!
The main objective of Paper 3 is to maximize wind farm efficiency. The optimal by taking economic aspects into account. The net present value (NPV) is the most important criteria for project investment estimating. The general approach in deciding the distinctive choice for a task through NPV is to treat the money streams as known with conviction. Even little deviations from the decided beforehand values might effectively negate the choice. To assess the investment risk of wind power project, this paper constructed a process that selected the most influential wind farm parameters on the NPV with adaptive neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS) method. This procedure is typically called variable selection, which corresponds to finding a subset of the full set of recorded variables that exhibits good predictive abilities. Variable seeking utilizing the ANFIS system was performed to figure out how the seven wind farm parameters affect the NPV of the wind farm.
So there is a slight difference between Paper 3 and Papers 1 and 2.
Abstract from Paper 1
Nowadays the use of renewable energy including wind energy has risen dramatically. Because of the increasing development of wind power production, improvement of the prediction of wind turbine output energy using classical or intelligent methods is necessary. To optimize the power produced in a wind turbine, speed of the turbine should vary with wind speed. Variable speed operation of wind turbines presents certain advantages over constant speed operation. This paper has investigated power-split hydrostatic continuously variable transmission (CVT). The objective of this article was to capture maximum energy from the wind by prediction the optimal values of the wind turbine reaction torque. To build an effective prediction model, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) for prediction of wind turbine reaction torque in this research study. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVRs can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models.
Abstract from Paper 2
Wind energy has become a large contender of traditional fossil fuel energy, particularly with the successful operation of multi-megawatt sized wind turbines. However, reasonable wind speed is not adequately sustainable everywhere to build an economical wind farm. In wind energy conversion systems, one of the operational problems is the changeability and fluctuation of wind. In most cases, wind speed can vacillate rapidly. Hence, quality of produced energy becomes an important problem in wind energy conversion plants. Several control techniques have been applied to improve the quality of power generated from wind turbines. In this study, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of support vector regression (SVR) to estimate optimal power coefficient value of the wind turbines. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR approach in compare to other soft computing methodologies.
We tried very hard to see the difference in the two abstracts. Let’s give the authors the benefit of the doubt. Let’s look at their conclusions.
CONCLUSION FROM THE PAPERS
Paper 1:
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining net work structure and trapping in the local optimum.
Paper 1:
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining network structure and trapping in the local optimum.
The above paragraphs were extracted from the conclusion of the respective papers. Can anyone tell me the difference in the two conclusions? They are the same word for word!
Let’s still give the authors a chance. Let’s look at their similarity index.
Table 1: Similarity Index
Paper 1 has a Similarity Index of 74%, Paper 2 81% while Paper 3, 40% (Please refer to Table 1). How these papers passed the stringent reviewing processes of the different journals baffles me.
As shown in Table 2a and 2b the contents of Paper 1 and Paper 2 overlaps with several papers written by the author and his team in 2014. These papers are from the Infra Red Physics & Technology, Applied Intelligence, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Physica E, Solar Energy, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering and the Journal of the Optical Society of America ( Pls refer to Table 2a, 2b and the Reference).
There is a 39% overlap of Paper 1 with [1] (Table 2a). The first author of Paper 1 is the co- author of [1], while the first author is an academic from Serbia. This looks like an international collaboration funded by University of Malaya (UM) as acknowledged in the paper (Grant CG043-2013). It is strange that the University of Malaya is funding this research on optic lens when none of the researchers are optic lens expert. In fact, one of the UM academician involved in [1] is a historian as stated in his UMExpert website and the others are computer scientists. The computing techniques applied here are artificial intelligence/machine learning techniques and none of these computer scientists are from AI.
Let me give another summary; this time taken from [1]
In this study, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) to estimate and predict estimate MTF value of the actual optical system according to experimental tests. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR_rbf approach in compare to SVR_poly soft computing methodology. accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR_rbf approach in compare to SVR_poly soft computing methodology.
Wait! Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, the abstracts from Paper 1 and Paper 2!
Again, the question remains of what is the difference between the various researches done by this group of authors as published in Papers 1,2 and [1]?
Table 2a also shows a 36% overlap between Paper 1 and [2] which is also funded by the University of Malaya, Malaysia, under the RP002D-13ICT research grant. The first author of this paper is the same author from Serbia, as in [1].
Paper 1 also have 33% overlap with [3], where this time the first author of Paper1 is the first author of [3] but this timeusing the job assignation of Islamic Azad University, Iran. Paper 1 also have a 33% overlap with [4] where a physicist from UM is a co-author and the research is funded by the University of Malaya under UM.C / 625/1 / HIR / KPT / SCI / 29, RP008E-13AET dan RU001-2014. Etc. etc. Please refer to Table 2a.
Paper 2 has a Similarity Index of 81%! With such a huge similarity index, what is the originality of Paper 2? At the risk of sounding like a parrot, what is the contribution of Paper 2? What was the purpose of publishing Paper 2? Please refer to Table 2b and the reference for details.
Tables 2a and 2b show that the first author of Paper 1 does not really write new articles to be published but merely recycles his articles. The details of the papers that match Papers 1 and 2 can be found in the references.
This is how the author is able to publish over 200 articles within 3 years or so.
We will not discuss the overlap of Paper 3, but wstill th a Similarity Index of 40%, the degree of overlap is relatively small. However, most journals will not consider any papers with a similarity index above 25% and we are surprised that this paper has been published .
Table 2a: Articles that match with Paper 1
Table 2b: Articles that match with Paper 1
Notice how Paper 2 overlaps with the same articles as in Paper 1. This just goes to prove that the author recycles his papers.
The conclusion taken from [2] :
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining network structure and trapping in the local optimum.
Wait haven’t they come to this conclusion in two different papers? So, what is the contribution to knowledge from all these publications? Why are all these journals regurgitating facts and findings?
DISCUSSIONS
The three main papers in this discussion is on wind turbine. They are funded by the research grants of the University of Malaya. It is uncertain why the University of Malaya is allowing their researchers with grants to be involved in publication misconduct. Some of these researchers are professors. One tends to wonder if the papers have such a high percentage of duplication, if there was any research done at all. Is this merely a publication misconduct or the more serious research misconduct.
What is the contribution to knowledge from subsequent papers after 1 paper has been published?
REFERENCES:
[1] Dalibor Petkovica, Shahaboddin Shamshirbandb, Hadi Saboohic, Tan Fong Angd, Nor Badrul Anuard, Zulkanain Abdul Rahmane, Nenad T. Pavlovica, Evaluation of modulation transfer function of optical lens system by support vector regression methodologies – A comparative study, Infrared Physics & Technology, Volume 65, July 2014, Pages 94–102.
[2]Dalibor Petkovic,Shahaboddin Shamshirband,Hadi Saboohi,Tan Fong Ang, Nor Badrul Anuar, Nenad D. Pavlovic, Support vector regression methodology for prediction of input displacement of adaptive compliant robotic gripper, Applied Intelligence, October 2014, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 887–896.
[3] Zeynab Ramedania, Mahmoud Omidb, Alireza Keyhanib, Shahaboddin Shamshirbandc, Benyamin Khoshnevisanb, Potential of radial basis function based support vector regression for global solar radiation prediction, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 39, November 2014, Pages 1005–101
[4] Rozalina Zakariaa, Siti Munirah Che Noh, Dalibor Petkovic, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Richard Penny, Investigation of plasmonic studies on morphology of deposited silver thin films having different thicknesses by soft computing methodologies—A comparative study, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, Volume 63, September 2014, Pages 317–323.
[5] Zeynab Ramedania, Mahmoud Omidb, Alireza Keyhanib, Benyamin Khoshnevisanb, Hadi Saboohic, A comparative study between fuzzy linear regression and support vector regression for global solar radiation prediction in Iran, Solar Energy, Volume 109, November 2014, Pages 135–143.
[6]Shatirah Akib, Sadia Rahman, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Dalibor Petkovic, Soft computing methodologies for estimation of bridge girder forces with perforations under tsunami wave loading, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering March 2015, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 935–952.
[7] Rozalina Zakaria, Ong Yong Sheng, Kam Wern, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Ainuddin Wahid Abdul Wahab, Dalibor Petkovic, and Hadi Saboohi, Examination of tapered plastic multimode fiber-based sensor performance with silver coating for different concentrations of calcium hypochlorite by soft computing methodologies — A comparative study, Journal of the Optical Society of America AVol. 31, Issue 5,pp. 1023-1030, (2014).
This article discusses how a prolific author in an established institution managed to produce over 200 articles within 3 years as an academic.
First we look at the following three publications:
These publications all have one thing in common: wind turbine
- 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
- Wind turbine power coefficient estimation by soft computing methodologies: Comparative study, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 81, May 2014, Pages 520–526
- 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
SUBJECT
The objective of Paper 1 was to capture maximum energy from the wind by predicting the optimal values of the wind turbine reaction torque. To build an effective prediction model, the authors have decided to use polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) and have applied them as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) for prediction of wind turbine reaction torque. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by their proposed approach. Results show that SVRs can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models.
Paper 2 is still on wind power and still using RBF dan SVR to estimate the optimal power coefficient value of the wind turbines. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR approach in compare to other soft computing methodologies.
Nothing much was discussed about the data and how they were obtained! We are very certain the same data were used for both papers!
So what is the contribution of the second paper?As far as computer science is concerned, the findings of the second paper is the same as that of the first! What a waste of taxpayers money funding this research! What a waste of subscribers money buying journals that recycles facts and findings!
The main objective of Paper 3 is to maximize wind farm efficiency. The optimal by taking economic aspects into account. The net present value (NPV) is the most important criteria for project investment estimating. The general approach in deciding the distinctive choice for a task through NPV is to treat the money streams as known with conviction. Even little deviations from the decided beforehand values might effectively negate the choice. To assess the investment risk of wind power project, this paper constructed a process that selected the most influential wind farm parameters on the NPV with adaptive neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS) method. This procedure is typically called variable selection, which corresponds to finding a subset of the full set of recorded variables that exhibits good predictive abilities. Variable seeking utilizing the ANFIS system was performed to figure out how the seven wind farm parameters affect the NPV of the wind farm.
So there is a slight difference between Paper 3 and Papers 1 and 2.
Abstract from Paper 1
Nowadays the use of renewable energy including wind energy has risen dramatically. Because of the increasing development of wind power production, improvement of the prediction of wind turbine output energy using classical or intelligent methods is necessary. To optimize the power produced in a wind turbine, speed of the turbine should vary with wind speed. Variable speed operation of wind turbines presents certain advantages over constant speed operation. This paper has investigated power-split hydrostatic continuously variable transmission (CVT). The objective of this article was to capture maximum energy from the wind by prediction the optimal values of the wind turbine reaction torque. To build an effective prediction model, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) for prediction of wind turbine reaction torque in this research study. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVRs can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models.
Abstract from Paper 2
Wind energy has become a large contender of traditional fossil fuel energy, particularly with the successful operation of multi-megawatt sized wind turbines. However, reasonable wind speed is not adequately sustainable everywhere to build an economical wind farm. In wind energy conversion systems, one of the operational problems is the changeability and fluctuation of wind. In most cases, wind speed can vacillate rapidly. Hence, quality of produced energy becomes an important problem in wind energy conversion plants. Several control techniques have been applied to improve the quality of power generated from wind turbines. In this study, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of support vector regression (SVR) to estimate optimal power coefficient value of the wind turbines. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR approach in compare to other soft computing methodologies.
We tried very hard to see the difference in the two abstracts. Let’s give the authors the benefit of the doubt. Let’s look at their conclusions.
CONCLUSION FROM THE PAPERS
Paper 1:
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining net work structure and trapping in the local optimum.
Paper 1:
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining network structure and trapping in the local optimum.
The above paragraphs were extracted from the conclusion of the respective papers. Can anyone tell me the difference in the two conclusions? They are the same word for word!
Let’s still give the authors a chance. Let’s look at their similarity index.
Table 1: Similarity Index
| Paper | Similarity Index |
| 1 | 74% |
| 2 | 81% |
| 3 | 40% |
Paper 1 has a Similarity Index of 74%, Paper 2 81% while Paper 3, 40% (Please refer to Table 1). How these papers passed the stringent reviewing processes of the different journals baffles me.
As shown in Table 2a and 2b the contents of Paper 1 and Paper 2 overlaps with several papers written by the author and his team in 2014. These papers are from the Infra Red Physics & Technology, Applied Intelligence, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Physica E, Solar Energy, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering and the Journal of the Optical Society of America ( Pls refer to Table 2a, 2b and the Reference).
There is a 39% overlap of Paper 1 with [1] (Table 2a). The first author of Paper 1 is the co- author of [1], while the first author is an academic from Serbia. This looks like an international collaboration funded by University of Malaya (UM) as acknowledged in the paper (Grant CG043-2013). It is strange that the University of Malaya is funding this research on optic lens when none of the researchers are optic lens expert. In fact, one of the UM academician involved in [1] is a historian as stated in his UMExpert website and the others are computer scientists. The computing techniques applied here are artificial intelligence/machine learning techniques and none of these computer scientists are from AI.
Let me give another summary; this time taken from [1]
In this study, the polynomial and radial basis function (RBF) are applied as the kernel function of Support Vector Regression (SVR) to estimate and predict estimate MTF value of the actual optical system according to experimental tests. Instead of minimizing the observed training error, SVR_poly and SVR_rbf attempt to minimize the generalization error bound so as to achieve generalized performance. The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR_rbf approach in compare to SVR_poly soft computing methodology. accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by the SVR_rbf approach in compare to SVR_poly soft computing methodology.
Wait! Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, the abstracts from Paper 1 and Paper 2!
Again, the question remains of what is the difference between the various researches done by this group of authors as published in Papers 1,2 and [1]?
Table 2a also shows a 36% overlap between Paper 1 and [2] which is also funded by the University of Malaya, Malaysia, under the RP002D-13ICT research grant. The first author of this paper is the same author from Serbia, as in [1].
Paper 1 also have 33% overlap with [3], where this time the first author of Paper1 is the first author of [3] but this timeusing the job assignation of Islamic Azad University, Iran. Paper 1 also have a 33% overlap with [4] where a physicist from UM is a co-author and the research is funded by the University of Malaya under UM.C / 625/1 / HIR / KPT / SCI / 29, RP008E-13AET dan RU001-2014. Etc. etc. Please refer to Table 2a.
Paper 2 has a Similarity Index of 81%! With such a huge similarity index, what is the originality of Paper 2? At the risk of sounding like a parrot, what is the contribution of Paper 2? What was the purpose of publishing Paper 2? Please refer to Table 2b and the reference for details.
Tables 2a and 2b show that the first author of Paper 1 does not really write new articles to be published but merely recycles his articles. The details of the papers that match Papers 1 and 2 can be found in the references.
This is how the author is able to publish over 200 articles within 3 years or so.
We will not discuss the overlap of Paper 3, but wstill th a Similarity Index of 40%, the degree of overlap is relatively small. However, most journals will not consider any papers with a similarity index above 25% and we are surprised that this paper has been published .
Table 2a: Articles that match with Paper 1
| Artikel Lain | Percent Matched |
Table 2b: Articles that match with Paper 1
| Artikel Lain | Percent Matched |
Notice how Paper 2 overlaps with the same articles as in Paper 1. This just goes to prove that the author recycles his papers.
The conclusion taken from [2] :
The experimental results show that an improvement in predictive accuracy and capability of generalization can be achieved by our proposed approach. Results show that SVR can serve as a promising alternative for existing prediction models. It can be seen from the experiment that the prediction model overcomes the main shortage of artificial neural network without defining network structure and trapping in the local optimum.
Wait haven’t they come to this conclusion in two different papers? So, what is the contribution to knowledge from all these publications? Why are all these journals regurgitating facts and findings?
DISCUSSIONS
The three main papers in this discussion is on wind turbine. They are funded by the research grants of the University of Malaya. It is uncertain why the University of Malaya is allowing their researchers with grants to be involved in publication misconduct. Some of these researchers are professors. One tends to wonder if the papers have such a high percentage of duplication, if there was any research done at all. Is this merely a publication misconduct or the more serious research misconduct.
What is the contribution to knowledge from subsequent papers after 1 paper has been published?
REFERENCES:
[1] Dalibor Petkovica, Shahaboddin Shamshirbandb, Hadi Saboohic, Tan Fong Angd, Nor Badrul Anuard, Zulkanain Abdul Rahmane, Nenad T. Pavlovica, Evaluation of modulation transfer function of optical lens system by support vector regression methodologies – A comparative study, Infrared Physics & Technology, Volume 65, July 2014, Pages 94–102.
[2]Dalibor Petkovic,Shahaboddin Shamshirband,Hadi Saboohi,Tan Fong Ang, Nor Badrul Anuar, Nenad D. Pavlovic, Support vector regression methodology for prediction of input displacement of adaptive compliant robotic gripper, Applied Intelligence, October 2014, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 887–896.
[3] Zeynab Ramedania, Mahmoud Omidb, Alireza Keyhanib, Shahaboddin Shamshirbandc, Benyamin Khoshnevisanb, Potential of radial basis function based support vector regression for global solar radiation prediction, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 39, November 2014, Pages 1005–101
[4] Rozalina Zakariaa, Siti Munirah Che Noh, Dalibor Petkovic, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Richard Penny, Investigation of plasmonic studies on morphology of deposited silver thin films having different thicknesses by soft computing methodologies—A comparative study, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, Volume 63, September 2014, Pages 317–323.
[5] Zeynab Ramedania, Mahmoud Omidb, Alireza Keyhanib, Benyamin Khoshnevisanb, Hadi Saboohic, A comparative study between fuzzy linear regression and support vector regression for global solar radiation prediction in Iran, Solar Energy, Volume 109, November 2014, Pages 135–143.
[6]Shatirah Akib, Sadia Rahman, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Dalibor Petkovic, Soft computing methodologies for estimation of bridge girder forces with perforations under tsunami wave loading, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering March 2015, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 935–952.
[7] Rozalina Zakaria, Ong Yong Sheng, Kam Wern, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Ainuddin Wahid Abdul Wahab, Dalibor Petkovic, and Hadi Saboohi, Examination of tapered plastic multimode fiber-based sensor performance with silver coating for different concentrations of calcium hypochlorite by soft computing methodologies — A comparative study, Journal of the Optical Society of America AVol. 31, Issue 5,pp. 1023-1030, (2014).
Tuesday 26 July 2016
Let’s Talk Farming – An analysis of 3 papers
Paper 1: Benyamin Khoshnevisan, Elham Bolandnazar, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Hanifreza Motamed Shariati, Nor Badrul Anuar, Miss Laiha Mat Kiah, "Decreasing environmental impacts of cropping systems using life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-objective genetic algorithm", Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 86, 1 January 2015
Paper 2: Benyamin Khoshnevisan, Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, Sean Clark, Shahaboddin Shamahirband, Nor Badrul Anuar, Nor Liyana Mohd Shuib, Abdullah Gani, "Evaluation of traditional and consolidated rice farms in Guilan Province, Iran, using life cycle assessment and fuzzy modeling", Science of the Total Environment 481 (2014) 242–251, 2014
Paper 3: Benyamin Khoshnevisan, Elham Bolandnazar , Sasan Barak, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Hamid Maghsoudlou, Torki A. Altameem , Abdullah Gani, "A clustering model based on an evolutionary algorithm for better energy use in crop production", Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Volume 29, Issue 8, 2015
THE JOURNALS
Information about the journals were excessed from the Web of Science and as can be seen in Tables 1-3, these are Q1 or Q2 journals. But, these are not the main stream computer science journals where you would expect most computer scientist to publish. Never mind these papers are on the subject of rice, or farming or agriculture, so they should not be published in mainstream computer science journals. Let’s give the authors the benefit of the doubt, ok?
Table 1: lnformation from WOS for Journal of Cleaner Production
Table 2: lnformation from WOS for Science of the Total Environment
Table 3: lnformation from WOS for Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
THE SUBJECT DOMAIN
Paper 1 is about assesing environmental aspects associate with watermelon farming over its life cycle using genetic algorithm and data envelopment analysis. Results and conclusion quite vague!
Paper 2 is like Paper 1 but for rice, still using life cycle assessment (LCA) and using neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The difference is the analysis is compared between consolidated farming (CF) vs. traditional farming. (TF) The discovery is that CFs have better environmental performance when compared to TF.
Paper 3 is about energy consumption and its negative impact in water melon farms using Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) clustering model. Results: Best cluster performance produced in large farms.
FUNDING
The research in paper 1 was fund by University of Tehran for giving their financial support. This work is also support by the Malaysian Ministry of Education under the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MoE/FCSIT/ 12.
Paper 2 was fund by the University of Tehran the Malaysian Ministry of Education under the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant UM.C/ 625/1/HIR/MoE/FCSIT/17.
Paper 3 was fund by University of Tehran and University Malaya using the research grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOE/FCSIT/03.
THE COLLABORATORS
The collaborators in Paper 1 are from the University of Tehran, Iran. One is a PhD student from the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, but it is not sure whether the other one is a student or not. 3 UM researchers including The Genius.
The same PhD student as Paper 1 is involve in Paper 2 togather with another PhD student in Agricultural Mechanization, Department of Biosystems Engineering,University of Tabriz, a Associate Professor and Farm Director from Berea College, US. Agriculture and Natural Resources who is also an independent researcher according to his Researchgate profile and 4 UM researchers. 3 from computer system, including The Genius and 1 from information system.
How the Iranians, American decide to do research togather with UM researchers? Interesting!
Same 2 Iranians from Paper 1 involved in Paper 3, add with another PhD student from Qazvin Islamic Azad University Department of Industrial Engineering with a senior resercher in Economics from the VSB in Czech Republic. Also, 1 researcher from King Saud University, Department of Computer Science Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Don’t know if student or staff. And 1 professor from UM.
ORIGINALITY CHECK
Paper (1) – 28% Similarity
Paper (2) – 45% Similarity
Paper (3) - 100% Similarity – 96% Student Papers Submitted to King Saud University, 4% Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
QUESTION
Paper 1
Why UM researchers use UMHIR funds research in watermelon farming in Iran?
Why Malaysia government fund this research for Iranian student in Iran?
Are the 3 UM researchers involved in this research are agricultural or even botany experts?
Are they experts in genetic algorithm (GA) or operations research (OR)?
Do their research profile do claim them to be experts in GA or OR? Or are they are security experts?
Of course The Genius claims that he can do anything and is an expert in everything!
Why are two success researchers in computer science, including an associate professor (nor prof) in UM collaborate with a PhD student in agriculture?
Any environmental experts? Don’t know.
Paper 2
Why UM researchers use UMHIR funds for research in rice farm in Iran?
Why Malaysia government fund this research for Iranian student in Iran and researcher in US. US bigger, richer country, why not fund the research?
Are the 4 UM researchers involved in this research are agricultural or even botany experts?
Are they experts in fuzzy system (FS).
Do their research profile do claim them to be experts in FS. Or are their profile say they're security experts?
Of course The Genius claims that he can do anything and is an expert in everything!
Paper 3
Ditto
Saudi Arabia also rich country, why Malaysia fund research?
Any Energy experts?
Paper 2: Benyamin Khoshnevisan, Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, Sean Clark, Shahaboddin Shamahirband, Nor Badrul Anuar, Nor Liyana Mohd Shuib, Abdullah Gani, "Evaluation of traditional and consolidated rice farms in Guilan Province, Iran, using life cycle assessment and fuzzy modeling", Science of the Total Environment 481 (2014) 242–251, 2014
Paper 3: Benyamin Khoshnevisan, Elham Bolandnazar , Sasan Barak, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Hamid Maghsoudlou, Torki A. Altameem , Abdullah Gani, "A clustering model based on an evolutionary algorithm for better energy use in crop production", Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Volume 29, Issue 8, 2015
THE JOURNALS
Information about the journals were excessed from the Web of Science and as can be seen in Tables 1-3, these are Q1 or Q2 journals. But, these are not the main stream computer science journals where you would expect most computer scientist to publish. Never mind these papers are on the subject of rice, or farming or agriculture, so they should not be published in mainstream computer science journals. Let’s give the authors the benefit of the doubt, ok?
Table 1: lnformation from WOS for Journal of Cleaner Production
| ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL | 5 of 50 | Q1 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | 16 of 225 | Q1 |
| GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY | 5 of 29 | Q1 |
Table 2: lnformation from WOS for Science of the Total Environment
| ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | 32 of 225 | Q1 |
Table 3: lnformation from WOS for Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
| CR® Category | Rank in Category | Quartile in Category |
| ENGINEERING, CIVIL | 19 of 126 | Q1 |
| ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL | 21 of 50 | Q2 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | 88 of 225 | Q2 |
| STATISTICS & PROBABILITY | 8 of 123 | Q1 |
| WATER RESOURCES | 15 of 85 | Q1 |
THE SUBJECT DOMAIN
Paper 1 is about assesing environmental aspects associate with watermelon farming over its life cycle using genetic algorithm and data envelopment analysis. Results and conclusion quite vague!
Paper 2 is like Paper 1 but for rice, still using life cycle assessment (LCA) and using neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The difference is the analysis is compared between consolidated farming (CF) vs. traditional farming. (TF) The discovery is that CFs have better environmental performance when compared to TF.
Paper 3 is about energy consumption and its negative impact in water melon farms using Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) clustering model. Results: Best cluster performance produced in large farms.
FUNDING
The research in paper 1 was fund by University of Tehran for giving their financial support. This work is also support by the Malaysian Ministry of Education under the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MoE/FCSIT/ 12.
Paper 2 was fund by the University of Tehran the Malaysian Ministry of Education under the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant UM.C/ 625/1/HIR/MoE/FCSIT/17.
Paper 3 was fund by University of Tehran and University Malaya using the research grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOE/FCSIT/03.
THE COLLABORATORS
The collaborators in Paper 1 are from the University of Tehran, Iran. One is a PhD student from the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, but it is not sure whether the other one is a student or not. 3 UM researchers including The Genius.
The same PhD student as Paper 1 is involve in Paper 2 togather with another PhD student in Agricultural Mechanization, Department of Biosystems Engineering,University of Tabriz, a Associate Professor and Farm Director from Berea College, US. Agriculture and Natural Resources who is also an independent researcher according to his Researchgate profile and 4 UM researchers. 3 from computer system, including The Genius and 1 from information system.
How the Iranians, American decide to do research togather with UM researchers? Interesting!
Same 2 Iranians from Paper 1 involved in Paper 3, add with another PhD student from Qazvin Islamic Azad University Department of Industrial Engineering with a senior resercher in Economics from the VSB in Czech Republic. Also, 1 researcher from King Saud University, Department of Computer Science Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Don’t know if student or staff. And 1 professor from UM.
ORIGINALITY CHECK
Paper (1) – 28% Similarity
Paper (2) – 45% Similarity
Paper (3) - 100% Similarity – 96% Student Papers Submitted to King Saud University, 4% Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
QUESTION
Paper 1
Why UM researchers use UMHIR funds research in watermelon farming in Iran?
Why Malaysia government fund this research for Iranian student in Iran?
Are the 3 UM researchers involved in this research are agricultural or even botany experts?
Are they experts in genetic algorithm (GA) or operations research (OR)?
Do their research profile do claim them to be experts in GA or OR? Or are they are security experts?
Of course The Genius claims that he can do anything and is an expert in everything!
Why are two success researchers in computer science, including an associate professor (nor prof) in UM collaborate with a PhD student in agriculture?
Any environmental experts? Don’t know.
Paper 2
Why UM researchers use UMHIR funds for research in rice farm in Iran?
Why Malaysia government fund this research for Iranian student in Iran and researcher in US. US bigger, richer country, why not fund the research?
Are the 4 UM researchers involved in this research are agricultural or even botany experts?
Are they experts in fuzzy system (FS).
Do their research profile do claim them to be experts in FS. Or are their profile say they're security experts?
Of course The Genius claims that he can do anything and is an expert in everything!
Paper 3
Ditto
Saudi Arabia also rich country, why Malaysia fund research?
Any Energy experts?
Friday 8 July 2016
Pay to cite / publish
This information we got from former students. Not a secret that some people are paying to co-author and some people pay for people to cite their papers. We informed UM top management that this is happening because we feel it is not right. But no one wants to investigate because we don't give prove.
One member of UM top management ask if we have receipt or proof of money transfer for the payments. We are not Ethan Hunt or James Bond. We don't want to hack into bank system and go to jail, so we have no prove.
One member of UM top management ask if we have receipt or proof of money transfer for the payments. We are not Ethan Hunt or James Bond. We don't want to hack into bank system and go to jail, so we have no prove.
Unethical practices in research and publication
Not a secret that this is happening but we don't have proof:
How true is this? To know true or not, someone must investigate. We don't have power to go check other people's personal bank account!
One academic staff told his students to write papers but not include his name in paper (self-citation doesn't count). That paper cites many his other papers. This is his strategy to get a lot of citation and get promotion quickly. This is one of his paper. He said that UM top management said nothing wrong with his strategy.
UM is so chronic ranking crazy - can do whatever so that ranking goes up. The end justifies the means.
Do you agree with this strategy? If agree, we don't have to cite each other. Just tell your student to write a paper (don't include your name) and cite your 10 other papers. If you have 5 students, you get 50 citations already. Marvellous, right?
- Pay The Genius to be co-author.
- Pay for citation. Former students say that one particular academis staff offered to pay students RM200 to cite his papers.
- There are a few academic staff who buy equipment via their own company - meaaning grant money end up in their pocket.
How true is this? To know true or not, someone must investigate. We don't have power to go check other people's personal bank account!
One academic staff told his students to write papers but not include his name in paper (self-citation doesn't count). That paper cites many his other papers. This is his strategy to get a lot of citation and get promotion quickly. This is one of his paper. He said that UM top management said nothing wrong with his strategy.
UM is so chronic ranking crazy - can do whatever so that ranking goes up. The end justifies the means.
Do you agree with this strategy? If agree, we don't have to cite each other. Just tell your student to write a paper (don't include your name) and cite your 10 other papers. If you have 5 students, you get 50 citations already. Marvellous, right?
The Genius
An academic staff who passed PhD in 2013 has published almost 200 ISI papers since then. We call this person 'The Genius'.
Current and former students said he charge people a few thousand ringgit to co-author with him. Payment is not via a third party.
A few academic staff voiced their doubt about his amazing achievement to faculty management but ignored because he contribute a lot to achieve faculty publication KPI. They were accused of professional jealousy.
Here are three papers he published:
Paper 1: Support vector regressio nmethodology for wind turbine reaction torque prediction with power-split hydrostatic continuous variable transmission
Paper 2: Wind turbine power coefficient estimation by soft computing methodologies: Comparative study
Paper 3: Survey of the most influential parameters on the wind farm net present value (NPV) by adaptiveneuro-fuzzy approach
When we checked at TurnItIn, we found high similarity index for this papers.
TurnItIn Report Paper 1: Originality Report | All Source
TurnItIn Report Paper 2: Originality Report | All Source
TurnItIn Report Paper 3: Originality Report | All Source
HIR grant number is mentioned in 'Acknowledgement'. Strange because don't think the HIR grant is for wind turbine project. Do they do this to fulfil grant publication requirement?
Another paper by The Genius & Co was retracted by editor because high similarity index (73%).
Paper | Originality Report
Pay-to-publish is widespread that there are young lecturers who said, "Tak bayar, tak naik pangkatlah."
One of The Genius co-author (and member of faculty management) said this to young lecturers: "Apply for grant. If you can not publish, pay someone to take care of the publication. UM doesn't care how you do it. They only want the numbers."
Do you think this is acceptable and ethical?
Current and former students said he charge people a few thousand ringgit to co-author with him. Payment is not via a third party.
A few academic staff voiced their doubt about his amazing achievement to faculty management but ignored because he contribute a lot to achieve faculty publication KPI. They were accused of professional jealousy.
Here are three papers he published:
Paper 1: Support vector regressio nmethodology for wind turbine reaction torque prediction with power-split hydrostatic continuous variable transmission
Paper 2: Wind turbine power coefficient estimation by soft computing methodologies: Comparative study
Paper 3: Survey of the most influential parameters on the wind farm net present value (NPV) by adaptiveneuro-fuzzy approach
When we checked at TurnItIn, we found high similarity index for this papers.
TurnItIn Report Paper 1: Originality Report | All Source
TurnItIn Report Paper 2: Originality Report | All Source
TurnItIn Report Paper 3: Originality Report | All Source
HIR grant number is mentioned in 'Acknowledgement'. Strange because don't think the HIR grant is for wind turbine project. Do they do this to fulfil grant publication requirement?
Another paper by The Genius & Co was retracted by editor because high similarity index (73%).
Paper | Originality Report
Pay-to-publish is widespread that there are young lecturers who said, "Tak bayar, tak naik pangkatlah."
One of The Genius co-author (and member of faculty management) said this to young lecturers: "Apply for grant. If you can not publish, pay someone to take care of the publication. UM doesn't care how you do it. They only want the numbers."
Do you think this is acceptable and ethical?
Background
We are academic staff of Universiti Malaya who are worried about research and publication misconduct in UM.
We brought this problem to UM top management's attention but was ignored.
We hope this blog will stop unethical practices in the university.
We brought this problem to UM top management's attention but was ignored.
We hope this blog will stop unethical practices in the university.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)