Internati
o
nal
Journal of Ele
c
trical
and Computer
Engineering
(IJE
CE)
V
o
l.
5, N
o
. 4
,
A
ugu
st
2015
, pp
. 62
1
~
62
5
I
S
SN
: 208
8-8
7
0
8
6
21
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJECE
Affiliation Oriented Journals:
Don’t Worry About Peer Review
If You Have Good Affiliation
Mehdi Dadk
h
a
h
*1
, Adel M.
Alhar
b
i
2
, Mohamm
ad
H
a
m
a
d Al-k
hreshe
h
3
, Tole
Su
tik
n
o*
4
, T
o
m
a
sz
Ma
liszewski
5
,
Mohammad Davarpanah Jaz
i
1
6
, Sh
ah
ab
oddin
Sh
ams
h
irband
7
1,6
Departm
e
nt
of
Com
puter
and I
n
form
ation T
ech
nolog
y, F
oul
ad I
n
stitute
of
Te
chn
o
log
y
, Foul
ad sh
ahr,
Isfahan
8491663763, Ir
an
2
Department of English,
Univers
i
ty
of
M
e
m
phis
,
United S
t
ates
o
f
Am
erica
3
Department of English Languag
e
, Isr
a
Univ
ersity
, Jordan
4
Department of Electrical
Eng
i
n
eering
,
Un
iv
ersitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yog
y
ak
arta, I
ndonesia
5
Department of Social
Scien
ces,
Pomeranian University
in Slupsk
,
ul. Bo
h
a
terów
Westerplatte 647
6-200 Slupsk, P
o
land
7
Department
of
Computer
S
y
stem and
Inform
ation
Techno
log
y
,
Faculty
of
C
o
mputer Science
and
Information
Techno
log
y
, Un
iversity
of
Malay
a
, 50603
Kuala
Lumpur, Malay
s
ia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Apr 9, 2015
Rev
i
sed
May 16
, 20
15
Accepte
d
J
u
n 2, 2015
There has been
a growing concern about
fraud peer review ar
ticles that hav
e
been publish
e
d in some journals in favor
of th
ei
r authors'
affi
lia
tion, whi
c
h
have been dis
c
u
s
s
e
d extens
ivel
y b
y
s
o
m
e
res
earchers
.
This
res
e
arch pap
e
r
introduces a n
e
w another
challenge in
academic world con
cerning journals
’
editors who look at authors'
affiliations
rather th
an papers
'
contents. In this
short paper, we will introduce th
is al
arm
i
ng problem
and do an experim
e
ntal
test b
y
subm
itti
ng com
puter ge
nerat
e
d pap
e
rs t
o
som
e
journals
and fin
a
l
l
y
present the resu
lts of our experiment. The p
a
p
e
r is an expression of our
concern
about
providing for
maximum
high
ethics in
and
quality
of
public
ation
poli
c
y
of m
odern sc
ie
ntific
journ
a
ls.
Keyword:
Affiliatio
n
o
r
ien
t
ed
jo
urn
a
ls
F
a
k
e
con
f
er
e
n
ce
s
Hij
a
ck
ed jou
r
nals
Pre
d
at
ory
p
ubl
i
s
her
Social engi
nee
r
ing
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
M
e
hdi
Da
dk
ha
h,
Dep
a
rtm
e
n
t
o
f
Co
m
p
u
t
er
and
Inform
atio
n
Tech
no
log
y
, Fou
l
ad
In
stitu
te o
f
Techn
o
l
o
g
y
,
Fo
u
l
ad
Sh
ah
r,
I
s
f
a
h
a
n
8
491
66
376
3, I
r
a
n
.
Em
a
il: d
a
d
k
h
a
h
80@g
m
ail.co
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
Academ
i
c
i
n
t
e
gri
t
y
aro
u
nd t
h
e w
o
rl
d i
s
fa
ci
ng m
a
ny
chal
l
e
nges, s
u
c
h
as hi
jac
k
ed
j
o
ur
nal
s
[
1
-
3
]
,
bo
g
u
s i
m
pact
fact
or
s [
4
]
,
fa
ke co
n
f
ere
n
ces
[5]
,
s
o
ci
al
en
gi
nee
r
i
n
g [
6
]
,
pre
d
at
o
r
y
p
ubl
i
s
hers
[7
, 8]
a
nd s
o
forth.
It is significant that res
earch
er
s sh
ou
l
d
kno
w
ab
ou
t th
ese ch
allen
g
e
s,
o
t
h
e
rwise they
m
a
y fal
l
in
t
h
e trap
o
f
b
e
ing
acad
e
micall
y
d
i
scrimin
a
ted
d
u
e
t
o
th
eir affiliatio
n
statu
s
,
o
r
t
h
ey
m
a
y b
e
v
i
cti
m
s
o
f
h
i
j
ack
ed j
o
u
r
n
a
ls
o
r
p
r
ed
ator
y pu
b
lish
e
r
s
. Th
ere ar
e so
m
e
r
e
sear
ch
es t
h
at h
a
v
e
b
e
en
co
nducted
to
in
trod
uce h
i
j
a
ck
ed
jou
r
n
a
ls
and
p
r
e
d
at
ory
p
ubl
i
s
hers a
n
d t
h
ei
r
det
ect
i
o
n
t
ech
ni
q
u
es
to a
u
thors
[1-3, 8-10].
We
can als
o
find som
e
researc
h
es that
discuss a
b
out som
e
frauds
or challenge
s i
n
the academ
ic word and
prese
n
t som
e
guideli
ne for
aut
h
ors
t
o
di
re
ct
t
h
em
[5-7]
,
but
we ca
n
jus
t
fi
nd
o
n
e
rese
arch a
b
out
pee
r
re
vi
ew i
s
s
u
es
[9]
a
nd t
h
ere
i
s
no
research
abo
u
t
jo
urn
a
ls’ ed
ito
rs who
look
at au
tho
r
s' af
filiatio
n
s
rat
h
er
th
an
p
a
p
e
rs' co
n
t
en
ts.
In th
i
s
sho
r
t
p
a
p
e
r, we
will
firstly in
tro
d
u
c
e a n
e
w ch
allen
g
e
in
aca
d
e
m
i
c p
u
b
licatio
n
s
, wh
ich
co
n
s
i
d
ers affiliatio
n
rev
i
ew
rat
h
er t
h
a
n
t
h
e
pape
r revi
e
w
,
t
h
en ex
pl
ai
n
t
h
e
m
e
t
hod
of
t
h
e t
e
st
i
n
t
h
is dom
ai
n by
subm
i
t
t
i
ng com
put
e
r
gene
rat
e
d
pa
pe
rs t
o
som
e
j
o
u
r
nal
s
, a
n
d fi
nal
l
y
di
scuss
e
s t
h
e
fi
n
d
i
n
gs.
So
m
e
p
eer review j
ourn
a
ls care abo
u
t
au
t
h
o
r
s' a
ffiliatio
n
s
rath
er th
an
p
a
p
e
rs' co
n
t
en
ts an
d
p
u
b
lish
an
y pap
e
r
b
e
lon
g
i
n
g
to au
t
h
ors
with
go
od
affiliatio
n
s
,
su
ch
as h
e
ad
s of
d
e
p
a
rtm
e
n
t
s o
r
un
iv
ersities.
Th
ese
jo
u
r
nal
s
do
n
o
t
have
peer
re
vi
ews f
o
r s
u
c
h
p
a
pers a
n
d t
h
eir responses arri
ve quickly to t
h
ese aut
h
ors
.
We call
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
I
J
ECE Vo
l. 5
,
N
o
. 4
,
Au
gu
st 2
015
:
62
1
–
62
5
62
2
th
ese jou
r
n
a
ls
“affiliatio
n
o
r
i
e
n
t
ed
jo
urn
a
ls.” In
m
a
n
y
trusted
jou
r
n
a
ls,
th
e ed
itor rem
o
v
e
s au
t
h
ors' n
a
m
e
s
fro
m
p
a
p
e
rs and
send
s th
em
fo
r a
b
lin
d
rev
i
ew to
avo
i
d
any b
i
as in
favor o
f
tho
s
e au
thors,
b
u
t
in
affiliatio
n
o
r
ien
t
ed
jo
urnals, th
e ed
itor on
ly atten
d
s
to
au
tho
r
s’
affiliatio
n
s
an
d
no
t to
p
a
p
e
rs’ co
n
t
en
t.
Research
ers
sh
ou
l
d
kno
w ab
ou
t th
ese ch
al
len
g
e
s, o
t
h
e
rwise th
ey
m
a
y fall in
th
e trap
o
f
b
e
ing
acad
e
micall
y
d
i
scrimin
a
ted
d
u
e
to
t
h
eir affiliatio
n
statu
s
an
d h
a
v
e
t
o
submit th
eir p
a
p
e
rs to
o
t
h
e
r
j
ournals.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
To
con
f
i
r
m
o
r
refu
te
o
u
r affiliatio
n
o
r
ien
t
ed
jo
urn
a
ls h
ypo
th
esis we
d
i
d an
exp
e
rim
e
n
t
al test
in
g
.
First, we
created
a
co
m
p
u
t
er gen
e
rated
p
a
p
e
r with
SC
Ig
en
t
o
o
l
s (h
ttp
://p
do
s.csail.mit.ed
u
/
scig
en). SC
Ig
en is a
soft
ware
t
ool
d
e
vel
o
ped by
M
I
T
t
o
gen
e
rat
e
pape
rs. A
f
t
e
r g
e
nerat
i
n
g t
h
e
p
a
pers
, we c
h
a
n
ged t
h
e st
y
l
e, adde
d
so
m
e
th
in
g
and fin
a
lly p
u
t
n
a
mes o
f
au
t
h
ors with
goo
d
af
filiatio
n
s
(we
used
n
a
m
e
s an
d affiliatio
n
s
that it is
not
rel
a
t
e
d t
o
any
pe
o
p
l
e
or
com
m
it
t
ee). Al
so,
we
used Mail.com
services a
n
d crea
ted em
ails with t
h
e
fol
l
o
wi
n
g
a
d
dr
ess:
Exam
pl
e@eu
ro
pe.c
om
. In
de
vel
o
pi
ng
co
unt
ri
es, m
a
ny
j
o
ur
nal
s
ac
cept
pa
pe
rs
fr
o
m
Nort
h
A
m
erican
and
Eu
rop
ean countries to
sh
ow
t
h
at th
eir jou
r
nals are
p
opu
lar all o
v
e
r th
e wo
rl
d
.
We sub
m
itted
it
to
m
a
n
y
really ex
isting
j
ournals w
ith
different inde
xing, s
u
ch as
Scopu
s,
Th
om
son Re
u
t
ers,
Islam
i
c
Wo
rl
d
Sci
e
nce C
i
t
a
t
i
on
Dat
a
base
(I
SC
), et
c. A
f
t
e
r
subm
i
ssi
on, e
d
i
t
o
rs
of m
a
ny
jo
ur
nal
s
us
ual
l
y
send em
ai
l
s
abo
u
t
startin
g
a rev
i
ew or rej
ection
o
f
th
e
p
a
p
e
r. Th
e reason
s of rej
ection
ar
e
u
s
u
a
lly in
co
m
p
at
ib
ility with
th
e ai
m
an
d
scop
e of th
e jo
urn
a
ls o
r
lo
w qu
ality. Oth
e
r jou
r
n
a
ls
wh
ich
we sen
t
th
e p
a
p
e
r to
in
fo
rm
ed
u
s
that th
ey
wou
l
d
respon
d sh
ortly. If we h
a
d
n
o
t
u
s
ed
go
od
affiliati
o
n
,
we wou
l
d
h
a
ve waited
for the first an
swer a week
or m
o
re.
After
a while,
we rec
e
ived acce
ptance and/
or
reje
c
tion ans
w
e
r
s from
journals that we sent the
pape
rs
to
. Tab
l
e
1
sh
ows
rev
i
ew tim
e
,
th
e
jo
urn
a
l’s
scop
e an
d rev
i
ew
resu
lt.
Tab
l
e
1
.
Sam
p
l
e
resu
lts of
reviewin
g fo
r several jou
r
n
a
ls.
Cases*
Ti
m
e
of fi
rst ans
w
er
fo
r
m
edito
r
Ti
m
e
of fi
nal
ans
w
er
(review
i
ng
result)
Publication
Charge
Journal
Indexing
Review
Result
Case 1
6 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
-
525
USD
Scopus
Rejected, Editor
’
s
co
mm
ent:
“Your
paper
seem
s
to have been
auto
m
a
tically
gener
a
ted.
I
t
cannot be
accepted.”
Case 2
-
6 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
500 USD
Scopus
Accepted
Case 3
-
5 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
450 USD
Scopus
Accepted
Case 4
5 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
-
100
USD
Google
Scholar
Rejected, Editor
’
s
co
mm
ent:
“Your
paper
has m
o
r
e
plagiar
i
s
m
content.
”
Case 5
1 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
5 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
150 USD
Google
Scholar
Accepted
Case 6
1 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
- -
T
h
o
m
son
Reuters
Scopus
Rejected, Editor
’
s
co
mm
ent:
“
I
t falls outside the
editorial policy of the
Jour
nal,
which focuses on the
or
ganizational,
social and
m
a
nage
m
e
nt
issues associated with inf
o
r
m
at
ion-based
technologies r
a
ther
than technical issues.
”
Case 7
1 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
- -
T
h
o
m
son
Reuters
Scopus
Rejected, Editor
’
s
co
mm
ent:
“Your
m
a
nuscr
ipt
would be suitable f
o
r
the
journal of [na
m
e o
f
journal…] that it
is the
second
Case 8
-
6 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
150 USD
Scopus
Accepted
Case 9
8 hour
s after
sub
m
ission
15 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
100 USD
T
h
o
m
son
Reuters
Accepted
Case 10
-
7 day
s
after
sub
m
ission
325 USD
Scopus
Accepted
*
The
full
docu
m
entation
of
the
experimen
t is
in
possession of
the authors. The pa
per does not pro
v
ide the names o
f
th
e
journals, as it w
a
s only
to
introd
uce
the problem
and the dange
rs
it may bring, an
d not
to ana
lyze
the pub
lica
tion
p
o
licies
of individua
l jou
r
nals
.
Tabl
e 2
s
h
o
w
s revi
e
w
res
u
l
t
o
f
case 1
0
. Acc
o
r
d
i
n
g j
o
u
r
nal
’
s
em
ail
cont
ent
,
t
h
i
s
jo
u
r
nal
d
o
peer re
vi
ew by
t
w
o
ext
e
r
n
al
an
d i
n
t
e
rnal
re
vi
e
w
er
s. E
d
i
t
o
r
an
d
re
vi
ewe
r
s
of
t
h
i
s
jo
u
r
nal
c
o
ul
d
n
o
t
det
ect
t
h
at
o
u
r
pa
per
i
s
fa
k
e
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJECE
ISS
N
:
2088-8708
Affilia
tio
n
Orien
t
ed
Jou
r
n
a
l
s:
Don
’
t
Wo
rry Ab
ou
t Peer Revi
ew If Yo
u Ha
ve Go
od
…
(
M
e
h
di
D
a
dkh
a
h
)
62
3
Tabl
e 2.
R
e
vi
e
w
r
e
sul
t
of
cas
e
1
0
fo
r ou
r fa
ke pape
r
Ev
a
lua
tio
n
Criter
i
a
Tend to
re
jec
t
Tend to
a
c
cep
t
Technical Content and Accurac
y
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
Signif
i
cance of
The Work
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
Appropriate Title
,
Intr
oduction, And Conclusio
n
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall O
r
ganizati
o
n
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appr
opr
iateness fo
r
Jour
nal (
S
cope)
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
Style
and Clarit
y o
f
The Paper
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
Connection to Pr
evious Resear
ch
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
Overall Reco
mm
e
ndation
1 2 3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
As a Ref
e
ree
How
Do You Rate Your
Knowledge, Abili
ty And Conf
idence
I
n
Reviewing T
h
is Paper
1 2 3
4
5
6
7 8
9
10
3.
RESULTS
A
N
D
DI
SC
US
S
I
ON
The e
x
p
e
ri
m
e
nt
l
a
st
ed f
o
r
o
n
e
m
ont
h,
du
ri
n
g
w
h
i
c
h
we s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d o
u
r
fa
k
e
pa
per t
o
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
nal
s
an
d
receive
d their
answer. Fi
gure
1 show
s
the perce
n
tage of the
journals
that answere
d
our re
quest and the
jo
u
r
nal
s
t
h
at
di
d n
o
t
se
nd a
n
y
ans
w
er.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2 s
h
o
w
s t
h
e
perce
n
t
a
ge t
h
e
aim
and sco
p
e
of t
h
e j
o
ur
na
l
s
t
h
at
accepted our fake
pa
pe
rs, Figure 3
shows the
pe
rcenta
ge
of i
nde
xing
of journals
(reputable inde
xing we
re
selected) a
n
d Figure
4 s
h
ows
the
perce
n
tage
of
accepta
nce or
re
jection of our fake
pa
pe
r.
Fi
gu
re
1.
The
perce
n
t
a
ge
o
f
t
h
e
jo
u
r
nal
s
t
h
a
t
answ
ere
d
ou
r r
e
que
st
an
d di
d
not
sen
d
a
n
y
a
n
swe
r
Fi
gu
re
2.
The
perce
n
t
a
ge
o
f
j
o
u
r
nal
s
’ ai
m
and
sc
ope
that accepte
d
our fa
ke
pape
r
Fi
gu
re 3.
The
perce
n
t
a
ge
o
f
i
nde
xi
n
g
o
f
jo
u
r
nal
s
Figure
4. The
perce
n
tage
of a
cceptance
or
re
jection
of
o
u
r
fa
ke
pa
p
e
r
Journals
that
answered
to our
request
84%
Journals
that did
not send
any
answer
16%
Bi
ol
ogi
c
a
l
Science
Com
put
e
r
Scien
ce
an
d
Related
Dom
a
ins
Ph
armacy
Dom
a
ins
mu
ltid
isci
p
lin
ary
Scopus
Thomson
Reuters
Chemical
Abstrac
EBSCO
Accepted
Rejected
Other
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
088
-87
08
I
J
ECE Vo
l. 5
,
N
o
. 4
,
Au
gu
st 2
015
:
62
1
–
62
5
62
4
Th
is p
a
p
e
r
h
a
s in
v
e
stig
ated “Affiliatio
n
Orien
t
ed
Jo
urn
a
ls” to
in
su
re v
a
lid
ity an
d cred
ib
ility o
f
researc
h
et
hi
cs
i
n
t
h
e s
u
bm
i
s
si
on
p
r
oce
ss
of
di
ffe
re
nt
i
n
dex
j
o
u
r
nal
s
.
The
st
udy
t
e
st
e
d
ho
w
do
t
h
ese
jo
u
r
nal
s
p
r
o
cess and
resp
ond
to
th
e su
b
m
itted
p
a
p
e
rs b
a
sed
on
th
eir affiliatio
n
.
Si
m
ilar research
was also
do
n
e
b
y
SCIMAG
Dev
[10
]
. Fro
m
Table 1
an
d research
in [9
], it
can b
e
con
c
lud
e
d t
h
at in
affiliation
o
r
ien
t
ed
jo
urn
a
ls:
The aut
h
ors
with good aff
iliation
will receive the first answer
from
the e
d
itor
(on se
ndi
ng
for a re
vie
w
or
reject
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pa
per
)
s
o
one
r
t
h
an
ot
he
r a
u
t
h
ors
.
The a
u
thors
with good affilia
tion will
recei
ve revie
w
ing results
sooner
t
h
an ot
her aut
h
ors. Their pa
pers
will
be highly accepted.
In s
o
m
e
cases, pre
d
at
ory
j
o
u
r
nal
s
m
a
y
reque
st
m
a
ny
pu
bl
i
cat
i
on c
h
arges
fr
om
aut
h
o
r
s wi
t
h
go
od
affiliatio
n
.
Th
e affiliatio
n
s
th
at b
e
lo
ng
to
to
p
u
n
i
v
e
rsit
ies, b
i
g
co
m
p
an
ies and
ch
ief
o
r
head
o
f
d
e
partm
e
n
t
s are
considere
d
t
o
be good
affiliations. As
m
e
ntione
d
a
b
ove
, som
e
j
o
urnal
s
send acce
pt
ance to a com
puter
g
e
n
e
rates p
a
p
e
r b
ecau
s
e it b
e
lo
ng
s to
an
au
t
h
or with
g
ood
affiliatio
n
,
wh
i
c
h
m
ean
s th
at
we canno
t always b
e
sure
that
we ac
cess good qual
ity
academic research in
journals.
Al
t
h
o
u
gh
no
w
a
day
s
m
a
ny
t
r
ust
e
d e
d
i
t
o
rs
r
e
m
ove t
h
e
aut
h
o
r
s’
nam
e
s from
papers be
f
o
re se
ndi
ng t
h
em
for
rev
i
ews,
bu
t with
th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r o
f
jou
r
n
a
ls
b
e
in
g
pu
b
lishe
d, it is still v
e
ry h
a
rd
for
research
ers to fi
n
d
su
ch
j
ourn
a
ls. Besides, if th
at is t
h
e case,
t
h
ere can
still b
e
ed
it
o
r
’s
p
r
e-selec
tio
n in wh
ich a
g
ood
affiliatio
n
o
f
th
e
author(s) can play a significa
nt role.
An
ot
he
r chal
l
e
nge t
h
at
we
can speak a
b
o
u
t
i
s
com
p
ut
er ge
nerat
e
d
paper
s
. Acc
o
rdi
ng t
o
o
u
r
obs
er
vat
i
o
n
,
m
a
ny
edi
t
o
rs can
not
det
ect
a co
m
put
er gene
rat
e
d pa
pe
r an
d s
e
nd i
t
f
o
r a
rev
i
ew. I
f
t
h
e re
vi
ewe
r
b
o
a
rd
m
e
m
b
er
s can
no
t d
e
tect th
at th
e p
a
p
e
r h
a
s b
e
en
written
b
y
co
m
p
u
t
er g
e
n
e
rated
so
ft
ware, it
m
a
y b
e
pu
bl
i
s
he
d i
n
a
peer
re
vi
ewe
d
jo
ur
nal
.
Fo
r
g
ers
m
a
y
use sim
i
l
a
r soft
wa
re t
o
p
r
o
d
u
ce
a pa
per
o
r
re
p
h
rase
a
pape
r, c
o
m
b
i
n
e t
h
em
and cr
eat
e new
pa
p
e
rs a
nd
fi
nal
l
y
prese
n
t
o
r
/
a
nd
sel
l
t
h
em
as t
h
ei
r
ow
n.
In t
h
e
circu
m
stan
ces, we cann
o
t
b
e
su
re a
bou
t th
e
q
u
a
lity of acade
m
i
c research.
In th
e end
,
it left u
s
with
a cru
c
ial
q
u
e
stio
n-wh
ich
research
is
orig
in
al
?
And
d
o
j
o
u
r
na
l
(
s) pl
ed
ge
t
o
ens
u
re
eq
ual
ri
ght
s
o
f
p
ubl
i
s
hi
n
g
aca
dem
i
c pa
pers
based
on
t
h
e
resea
r
c
h
c
ont
e
n
t
rat
h
er t
h
a
n
l
o
oki
n
g
at
t
h
e
affiliatio
n
o
f
t
h
e au
tho
r
s to
pro
cess
pu
b
lish
i
n
g
faster
?
It m
a
y b
e
h
a
rd
to an
swer t
h
ese
q
u
estio
n
s
b
ecau
s
e o
f
th
e
l
a
rge scal
e of
peer re
vi
ew
jo
ur
nal
s
t
h
at
m
i
ght
or m
i
ght
not
com
p
l
y
wi
t
h
the researc
h
i
n
t
e
gri
t
y
i
n
t
h
e pr
ocess
of
p
u
b
l
i
s
hi
n
g
a
cadem
i
c
paper
s
.
It is generally
accepted that
authors s
h
ould not s
ubm
it fake pa
pe
rs
to journals
, even
for an
ex
p
e
rim
e
n
t
o
r
stu
d
y
, also
research
ers sho
u
ld
on
ly u
s
e t
h
eir own
affiliatio
n
s
,
Nev
e
rt
heless, in
th
e case o
f
stu
d
i
es o
n
research
reliab
ility
su
ch
action
seem
to
b
e
justified
,
as th
ey d
o
n
o
t
lead to
g
e
tting
unearn
e
d
bene
fits by t
h
eir aut
h
ors
but revealing t
h
e practices
that have
a
negative im
pact on the
entire
research
co
mm
u
n
ity an
d
its so
cial p
e
rcep
tio
n th
at is
wh
y su
ch
rese
a
r
ch is s
o
m
e
times carried
ou
t
com
p
are
also [9, 11].
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Th
is sho
r
t research
p
a
p
e
r in
tro
d
u
c
ed
two
challen
g
e
s-first,
affiliatio
n
orien
t
ed
jou
r
n
a
ls,
an
d
secon
d
,
acceptance
of com
puter gene
rates
pa
pe
rs
in journals.
It is ethical that e
d
itors
res
p
ect i
n
ternational e
d
itorial
ethical policy in academ
ic worl
d a
n
d
ask for
re
views wit
h
out
paying atte
ntion t
o
t
h
e
author’s a
ffiliation.
Al
so, e
d
i
t
o
rs
m
u
st
send pa
p
e
rs t
o
e
xpe
rt
p
e
opl
e i
n
eac
h f
i
eld rather t
h
an to ge
neral re
vi
ewer(s) i
n
the
specific
dom
ai
n t
o
det
e
ct
com
put
er ge
nerat
e
d pa
pe
rs.
It
i
s
o
u
r
d
u
t
y
t
o
hel
p
edi
t
o
rs
t
o
d
o
revi
e
w
i
ng
f
o
r t
h
ei
r
jo
ur
na
l
pape
rs. T
h
e fa
ct that, un
fo
rt
un
ately, so
m
e
j
o
urn
a
ls do
no
t o
b
s
erv
e
th
ese
pri
n
ciples,
or-in the case of a
u
thors
with
go
od
affiliatio
n
-
d
o
n
o
t
always o
b
serv
e th
em
is o
f
o
u
r ob
v
i
o
u
s co
ncern, as it
is in
th
e
v
e
ry b
e
st in
terest o
f
the resea
r
c
h
worl
d to ha
ve a
fair and
objecti
v
e
as
m
u
ch as
pos
sible
pub
lication acce
ptance proces
s.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
M. Jalalian
and
H.R. Mahboobi,
“Hijacked
Journ
a
ls and
Predator
y
Publishers: Is
There a N
eed
to
Re-Think
How to
As
s
e
s
s
the Quali
t
y
of Ac
adem
ic
Res
earch
?
”
,
Walai
l
a
k J Sc
i
&
Te
c
h
, Vol. 11
, No
.
5, pp
. 389-394
,
2014.
[2]
M. Jalal
i
an
, “
H
ija
cked Journals
Are Atta
cking
the Re
liab
ili
t
y
and Valid
it
y o
f
Medica
l Rese
arch,
”
E
l
ec
tr
oni
c
Physic
ian
, Vol.
6, No. 4, pp. 925
-926, 2014
. DOI: 10.14661
/2014.925-926.
[3]
M. Dadkhah
et
a
l
.
, “How Can We Iden
tif
y
H
ijacked Journals
?
”
,
Bulletin
of Electrical E
ngineerin
g and Informatics
,
Vol. 4
,
No. 2, pp
. 83-87
, 2015
. D
O
I: 10.12928/eei.v4i2.449
.
[4]
M. Jalalian an
d H.R. Mahboobi, “New Cor
r
uption De
tected: Bogus Impa
ct Factors Compiled b
y
Fak
e
Organizations”,
Electronic physician
, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 685-686,
2013. DOI: 10
.1
4661/2013.685-
686.
[5]
M. Dadkhah
et al
., “
F
ake Confer
ences
for Earnin
g Real M
one
y”,
Mediterranean Journal of Social Scien
ces
, V
o
l. 6
,
No. 2, pp. 11-12, 2015. DOI:10.5
901/mjss.2015.v6n2p11
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ECE
I
S
SN
:
208
8-8
7
0
8
Affilia
tio
n
Orien
t
ed
Jou
r
n
a
l
s:
Don
’
t
Wo
rry Ab
ou
t Peer Revi
ew If Yo
u Ha
ve Go
od
…
(
M
e
h
di
D
a
dkh
a
h
)
62
5
[6]
M. Dadkhah
an
d A. Quliy
e
v
a
, “Social
Eng
i
n
eering
in Acad
emic World”,
Journal of Contemporary Applied
Mathematics
, V
o
l. 4
,
No
. 2
,
pp
.
3-5, 2014
.
[7]
A.
Tin,
et a
l
.
,
“
P
redator
y
and
Fak
e
Sci
e
ntif
ic Jour
nals/Publishe
rs-
A
Global Outbr
e
ak with
Rising
Trend: A R
e
view
”,
Geographica Pa
nnonica
, Vol. 18
, No. 3, pp. 69-8
1
, 2014
.
[8]
J. Bowman, “Pr
e
dator
y
Publis
hing, Questionable P
eer Review, and Fraudulent
Conferences”,
American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education
,
Vol.
78, No. 10, pp. 1
-
6. DOI: 10
.568
8/ajp
e
7810176.
[9]
J. Bohannon,
“Who'
s Afraid of Peer Rev
i
ew
?
”
,
Science
, Vol. 342, N
o
. 6145, pp
.
50-65, 2013.
DOI:
10.1126/science.342.6154.60
.
[10]
M. Dadkhah, et al., “An Intr
oduction to Jour
nal Phishings a
nd Their Detection Approach”,
TE
LKOMNIKA
Telecommunica
tion, Computin
g, Electronics
and Control
, Vol. 13
, No
. 2, pp. 373-
380, 2015. DOI:
10.12928/TELK
OMNIKA.v13i2.1436
[11]
E. D.
Lóp
ez-Có
zar,
et
al
., “Manipulating Googl
e Scholar Citations and Google
Sc
holar Metrics: simple,
eas
y
an
d
tem
p
ting”
,
EC3 Working
Pap
e
rs.
6: 29
May
2012
, pp
. 1-10
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.