Jan 15, 2012

Can Anyone Explain Why CERN Fears Nothing more than a Scientific Safety Conference?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The conference was first publicly requested on April 18, 2008 and first endorsed by a court on January 27, 2011.

Had CERN who stood before that court not said “no” almost a year ago, the danger to the planet consciously incurred during 2011 could not be planned to be quintupled this year.

The only task of the conference is to find a counterproof against a single element of the 5-element chain proof of danger which looks as if nature had posed humanity a trap. The topic is the micro black holes planned to be produced by CERN as a self-declared “black hole factory.” They have 5 new properties:

– they arise much more easily
– they are undetectable by CERN’s sensors
– they at first pass friction-free through earth’s matter
– they if slow enough to circulate inside earth get stuck after a while to grow exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar that, after some years, will make for a beautiful sight from the moon
– they are not exculpated by their ultrafast natural analogues getting stuck inside neutron stars because the latter are protected by their quantum superfluidity.

The explanation for points 1–4 is the new infinite distance of the surface (horizon) of a black hole from the outside world (so they cannot “Hawking evaporate”), and their new unchargedness makes them slippery, and chaos theory (my special field) makes them self-organizing inside matter.

The 5 points go un-disputed in the scientific literature since they were first published in mid-2008. They go deliberately unquoted by CERN to which they were sent in early 2008. The latest version of the original advanced gothic-R theorem – the “Telemach theorem” in print with the African Journal of Mathematics – since last January waits for a first scientific critic to stand up. No scietist still openly criticizes the gothic-R theorem which had immediately been generalized to 3 dimensions by a more able colleague in answer to all later criticism.

All I ever asked for is the benefit of the doubt. No colleague contradicts me any more in the open. This fact notwithstanding, all global political and jurisdictional institutions and information empires violate their lawful duties by refusing to act or report.

My last hope is the German head of state Wulff who is currently under pressure for having accepted presents from friends before taking the highest office. I asked him to kindly look into the matter and tell the planet whether the proof of danger has been disproved: “yes” or “no.” The whole planet will embrace him as its most beloved figure if he tells the truth (“no” — the danger is unfortunately real as far as anyone can say without the safety conference).


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Alternatively every scientist on the planet can make himself a name by standing up.

  2. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler, I suggest that you look up the meaning of “figurehead”…

    Your lunacy was entertaining at first, but now it has really become boring: you are repeating the same post over and over again just to be on the top of the LIfeboat Blog page.

    And BTW will you finally provide evidence that “African Journal of Mathematics” exists? Can you mention any articles published there?

  3. Thank you: I changed “furehead” into “most beloved figure.”

  4. PassingByAgain says:

    And what about the evidence that “African Journal of Mathematics” exists? Can you mention any articles published there?

  5. Peter Howell says:

    The journal seem to exist:

    They publish articles if the author pays a “handling fee”:

    Nuff siad!

  6. PassingByAgain says:

    I don’t think it’s the same journal. Is it, Rossler?

  7. PassingByAgain says:

    Peter: I suspect that Rossler’s imaginary journal is the one described in this link:

    which in turn points to this highly professional web page:

    but only Rossler can clarify the confusion. Will you, Otto?

  8. Hansel says:

    OMG, Rössler can not even answer this questions…

  9. This strange group from Germany feels that insult is a rational strategy if someone tells you to, please, slow down because the brakes on your car are not working. So the only rational element in their behavior is their scrupulously maintained anonymity.

    Dr. Tom Kerwick’s recent (non-anonymous) enquiry about the quasar growth law is well taken. The exponential growth of quasars in the presence of star food is in the empirical literature. It covers at most 10 orders of magnitude, thereby already breaking all records. I elongated it by 50 more orders of magnitude downwards, in my paper titled “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma” published in mid 2008 which is on the internet (quoted in the gothic-R paper).

    I did try to contact Roger Blandford, in vain so far. He is the world’s leading expert on quasar physiology. Maybe he can point Tom to the hoped-for disproof which I was unable to find so far?

  10. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler, will you answer the questions above on the “African Journal of Mathematics”? Until then, your readers are entitled to suspect that THE JOURNAL DOES NOT EXIST

  11. I had only the most pleasant experiences with the editorial staff.

  12. Hansel says:

    Thats no answer.

  13. PassingByAgain says:

    That’s NOT an answer to my questions above. But take your time, I need to leave now.

  14. I do not recognize the journal link you gave, little passenger.

    But I am very astonished about the strange debate you aroused. Like a witch hunt. CERN must be desperate in its fear, not of killing the world but of being exposed in its proven irresponsibility.

    I reiterate my offer to answer any question from CERN or one of its emissaries — but please without mask. Scientists wearing a mask are a nightmare. Darth-Vaders belong to Dan Brown.

  15. Hansel says:

    What journal is it then?

  16. Why don’t you ask who is Mister Wulff?

  17. Hansel says:

    Don’t be silly, Rössler. You were so proud of your “publication” first and now your are not able to give the name, link, editors of the journal?

  18. The little anonymous gangsters are unable even to use a scientific library. This is the picture of German science presented to the planet.

    But please, be silent a little bit now because everyone is waiting for the high-ranking person’s answer.

  19. Hansel says:

    Definition of gangster according to Rössler: “A person disproving Rössler, showing flaws in Rösslers work, revealing Rösslers lies”

    Nice, Rössler. :D But please invent some new jokes, these old ones are a little bit boring now.

    Apparently the journal does not exist as Rössler is not able to show it. The other possibility is that he has something to hide, probably like the El Naschie connecntion of pseudoscience.

  20. Little gangsters are unable to recognize a proof and to read a library. But somehow they are cute.

  21. Hansel says:

    There is no proof.

    Now, where is the journal? Is it that difficult, Rössler? And if, why?

  22. Hansel says:

    And: nothing to say about TRMGs posting?

    Interesting. :D

  23. Hansel says:

    The long silence again. :D

  24. Mike says:

    At this point, I admit, it has become utterly impossible to take Rossler seriously. He has been asking for a disproof all along…TRMG and Hansel gave one (and it is valid!!…and Rossler responds by calling Hansel a “swine” and not responding.

    Utterly pitiful. What a joke.

  25. Hansel says:

    He is not even able to give the name of the journal. :D

  26. Hansel says:

    …the link of the journal and some references…

  27. “TRMG and Hansel gave one (and it is valid!!…”

    You are the first who sees that. Can you repeat it or make it intelligible? I will make it famous if it exists and holds water, dear Mike.

  28. Hansel says:

    Many people have shown that you are talking only bullshit about relativity etc. For example the user ICH. :D

    As long as you are the only one judging yourself you will be never disproved, of course. :D

  29. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler, where is the webpage of “African Journal of Mathematics”? Can you point us to any articles published there? Why can’t you answer these very simple questions???

  30. Mike says:

    Rossler — you are a lonely chicken, crossing a country road…in other words a joke. Not a funny joke any more. Your spamming of this blog is accomplishing nothing more than making you look ever more foolish.

    You’ve lost. It is over. Go away and quit picking your nose.

  31. Hansel says:

    “Why can’t you answer these very simple questions???”

    That is really strange. :D

    But…when did Rössler ever answer a question? :D

  32. Tom Kerwick says:

    When the faceless involve in character defamation, personal attacks and deleting comments, and the greater campaign against CERN has at times experienced unforgivable hackings to silence critical debate (albeit not as intense as the hackings that wikileaks experienced in recent times), I am not surprised Otto is economical is answering questions to what I term faceless vampires. Otto, thank you for the pointer to the older document. I had actually referenced it in my dissertation and had glanced over it again earlier today along with the abraham solution.

    As for why CERN fears nothing more than a Scientific Safety Conference, this may because of PR — as to agree to hold such a conference could give the impression that they finally agree there is still reasonable debate which could jeaprodise their capacity to continue operations. However, as a court ruling has asked for it, they have a legal obligation to play ball.

  33. Ed Sweet says:

    You know, in spite of my disagreements with Rossler’s results and methodology, I think it would be a good idea to have a safety conference, if only to clear the air…maybe present some of the alternatives that Robert Houston’s research turned up, and see if any of them hold any water.

    A matter of thoroughness.

    I don’t expect Rossler’s results to hold up well, but it would lead to some interesting coverage on tech sites, and might be good publicity for Lifeboat Foundation. Might make both sides happy.

  34. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I can only thank Ed Sweet.

  35. Robert Houston says:

    It is refreshing to read such a sensible comment about safety issues from Ed Sweet, who has been one of Dr. Rossler’s critics at Lifeboat.

    CERN’s leaders and defenders have recoiled from the idea of a safety conference, like vampires from a cross. Dr. Kerwick cogently explained the basis for their opposition in PR concerns “which could jeapardize their capacity to continue operation.”

    But as with the the Titanic or the recent Costa Concordia cruise liner, potential disaster might be avoided if safety were stipulated as a serious ongoing priority — not just a PR claim. The ship of fools known as CERN is also vulnerable to catastrophe but of a far larger magnitude.

    Regarding publication, Dr. Rossler is under no obligation to specify the open access journal that accepted his paper, which apparently has not yet been published. It was predictable that the CERNerds would trash the journal as well as the paper, since it’s critical of their pet doomsday machine.

    Their recent complaint about “fees” in technical publishing is disingenuous. Except for large journals with extensive ad revenues such as Nature, many reputable scientific journals do hit the authors with fees of various kinds, such as page charges, reprint costs and open access charges. For example, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in America, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US), has a list of author fees including $1300 for publishing an open access article. Such fees are usually paid by the authors’ institution or supporting grants, and are considered part of the price of doing science.

  36. Otto E. Rossler says:

    CCCC — Costa Concordia CERN Cruise — very fittting if, as you say, belittling.

    By the way: Can you explain the misuse of these charming young people by their superiors?

  37. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    The comments of Tom Kerwick on January 16, 2012 9:58 am and of Ed Sweet on January 16, 2012 3:25 pm are very good and tell the truth — thank you. In the sense of a safety conference (which should be the theme here) I ask Robert Houston to send me a private message on Facebook, if possible: Niccolo Tottoli (on facebook without ‘ on the o). Thank you very much.

  38. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    The misuse of other people and to write with alias does depend on the same reason as why CERN fears nothing more than a Scientific Safety Conference.

  39. PassingByAgain says:

    Houston, what I am going to write is so obvious to anybody who is even remotely part of this field that I really shouldn’t waste my time, but I will indulge nevertheless:

    NONE of the serious journals in particle physics (e.g. PRL, PRD, JHEP, NPB, PLB, EPJC) charges the authors any “handling fee” for accepted papers. They might charge fees for frills, such as reprints or colour pictures in the printed version, but in the age of the internet (and of the arXiv) who cares about those frills? The main source of revenue for serious journals is not ads (REALLY? ADS? have you actually ever seen a scientific journal in your life?), but subscriptions by scientific institutions. Whether or not enough institutions will buy a subscription depends on the quality and reputation of the journal, therefore serious journals have an incentive to be rigorous in their peer-review process. On the other hand, a journal whose profitability depends on the fees paid by authors of accepted papers has an incentive to accept as many papers as possible. And as we see here in Lifeboat, there is an endless supply of crackpots and fools who will be parted from their money for the vanity of having their paper “published in a journal”…

  40. Hansel says:

    The people without any knowledge know best. So it is absolutely impossible that there are other reasons than evil intentions or something like that for Rössler not getting his “safety coonference”.

    and of course Mr Tottoli ois absolutely correct when he states in other sections that cosmic ray collisions are absolutely not comparable with LHC collisions. It needs an enormous lack of knowledge to come to these conclusions. And of course these are correct conclusions. The scientists are all brainwashed liars, evil people consciously risking to destroy the earth. ;)

    BTW it is also true that outsiders are always right because they are outsiders. Therefore Rössler must be correct. It is impossible that he is simply writing nonsense no real scientist wants to waste his time with. ;)

  41. AnthonyL says:

    “Of course Mr Tottoli is absolutely correct when he states in other sections that cosmic ray collisions are absolutely not comparable with LHC collisions.” — Hansel

    Meant sarcastically, in other words, the opposite is Hansel’s belief. So Hansel, which high school did you go to? Must have been American. Mine taught the law of conservation of linear momentum. Drawing on that happy principle, one might find that the difference between cosmic ray bombardment of the planet we ride on and the head on collision between protons in the LHC is that the latter might well end up yielding particles with less than escape velocity, and thus any black holes, strangelets or inflatons created in the latter would linger, just as the CERN safety report noted. You have read that, haven’t you, Hansel?

    PassingBy what Houston has in mind in saying ads help finance scientific journals is Nature, Science, NEJM, and others of a general interest nature. Specialty journals in particle physics may not charge authors or have ads and pay their way with huge subscription fees and reprint charges etc but surely this era is passing as the Internet takes over with ResearchGate. Specialty journals in most fields tend to include ones which charge authors, I believe, yet are still competitive to get into.

    The Proceedings of the National Academy is considered the most prestigious of all by many yet it charges authors as Houston points out.
    “PNAS depends, in part, on the payment of publication fees to finance its operations. Articles are accepted or rejected for publication and published solely on the basis of merit. All authors will be assessed the following fees:

    “Page charges: $70 per page, from all authors who have funds available for that purpose.
    SI: $250 per article for up to five pages of SI and $500 per article for six or more pages of SI
    Color charges: $200 for each color figure or table. A single figure is defined as original art that can be processed as a unit and printed on one page without intervening type.
    Replacement or deletion of figures: $150 per color figure or table, $25 per black and white figure, $25 per figure in SI (color or black and white).
    PNAS Plus: $215 per research article page. No additional charges for print summary, color figures, or SI (up to four pages).
    Open Access: Authors of research articles may pay a surcharge of $1,300 to make their paper freely available through PNAS open access option. If your institution has a Site License, the open access surcharge is $975. All articles are free online after 6 months.
    Authors will also be charged for excessive alterations on proofs and submission of revised files after the article has been transmitted to the printer. Requests for waiver of charges should be submitted to [email protected].”

    The waiver refers to the fact that some authors may lack affiliation with institutions willing to pay the fees for them, and therefore might be let off.
    Charging authors fees also enables the publication to have open access of the Web and encourages dissemination of the article. This model seems to be gaining ground. For example at Nature there is this text:
    “Publishers of scholarly journals currently obtain most of their revenue from subscription fees charged to libraries and individual users. We call this the ‘Reader Pays’ pricing model. An alternative pricing method has recently emerged, in which publishers collect their revenue by charging significant publication fees to authors, and then supply their content over the Internet, at no cost to readers. We call this the ‘Author Pays’ pricing model. ‘Open Access, Author Pays’ publishing is relatively new and has only become feasible because of the recent development of the Internet; although this has little impact on the fixed costs of producing a journal, it makes the marginal cost of extending Web access to new users almost zero.

    For Reader Pays publishing, data on price and quality of journals are abundant. For the nascent Author Pays model, not much historical information is available and the academic world has not yet had time to adapt fully to the technological capabilities of the Internet. To predict the eventual shape of the academic publishing market, it is useful to think about the economic fundamentals of this industry and their likely effects.”

  42. AnthonyL says:

    ALso of note is the paragraph further down in this 2004 paper:

    “Will Open Access be able to compete successfully? This depends largely on whether authors (or universities and granting agencies acting on their behalf) will be willing to pay substantial author fees to support Open Access for their work. Doing so may not require altruistic behaviour on an author’s part. Recent studies suggest that Open Access are cited much more often than similar articles without open access2,3. Citations translate into both prestige and money; two recent econometric studies of economists’ salaries estimated that on average, controlling for age and number of articles published, doubling one’s number of citations increases one’s salary by 7–14%.”

    Publish or perish!

  43. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel
    “Science is friendship” (Otto E. Rössler) but the LHC issue is very different because it is often a fight. This is seldom in science. It is true that CERNies are not evil. They are normal people like you or/and me but obviously there are various psychological problems.
    (Thank you dear AnthonyL!) But Hansel one more time: You say: “and of course Mr Tottoli is absolutely correct when he states in other sections that cosmic ray collisions are absolutely not comparable with LHC collisions. It needs an enormous lack of knowledge to come to these conclusions.“
    Shall I copy my comments from the other sections and paste them here once more for you?
    Please read my comments in Prof. Rössler‘s “Dear Mr. President:” May 3, 2011, in category “particle physics” and in Mr. Steve Nerlich‘s “Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 3″, Nov. 19, 2011, in category “particle physics” also
    (If I show the links they will be blocked by the spam filter.)
    You (or your friends or who ever) can tell me if there is a serious error and I will be glad to revise it.
    Or just tell me about how many % of my arguments are wrong there.
    And this one is for you, because you like it so much: :-)
    Thanks. Best regards, Niccolò.

  44. Dear Anthony:
    Forgive me that it took me so long to fulfill my promise given to you. Is the text reparable?
    Your exhausted friend.

  45. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    I give you one or two days Hansel.

  46. PassingByAgain says:

    Anthony: “specialty journals in particle physics” are the ones we should looking at in this discussion (isn’t it all about a new “result” in particle physics?). No matter what the guys you quoted might have speculated back in 2004, the “author pays pricing model” never took hold there. No serious journal takes money from the authors, for the obvious reasons I stated above.

  47. PassingByAgain says:

    BTW, this brings me to another consideration: even if “Telemach” was a real scientific paper — as opposed to such a pathetic mess — a serious “Journal of Mathematics” that is not just after the $550 fee would reject it as non pertinent to the journal’s subject…

  48. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel, dear CERN
    The cosmic ray issue and the differences between natural and LHC-collisions should be further investigated very carefully and honest in detail. This was mostly not the case in LSAG, because they forgot important points and just have used it with deficiencies as THE general safety argument for the experiments, as a reassurance to deny most risks (if not all). I feel it is strange that my layman understandable arguments have not been answered yet in most cases. So do not hurry, you have all the time you need — but please do it. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely yours, Niccolò Tottoli

  49. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Therefore in a nutshell: What are all possible reactions and islands of stability of all possible particles and fields, also in terms of their speed and mass, when passing through space-time and matter?

  50. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    To show the possible risk I use the famous example of neutrons in nuclear power reactors. The graphite moderator does decrease the velocity of neutrons, to increase the reaction rate with the nuclear fuel (uranium).
    Now I leave this blog for a little while. Best wishes to all.

  51. AnthonyL says:

    Tottoli, it is not necessary to prove that cosmic ray collisions are going to have a different outcome from those in the LHC if we accept the authority of the CERN safety report, which states that in the latter case they may well “linger”. Are you saying you do not accept their authority? Given their inconsistencies, that may well be justified. But PassingBy and other Rossler critics treat them as gospel, I believe. So their own faith in the safety of the LHC would seem to be undermined by the very authorities they believe in.

    PassingBy you always operate on the ruling premise that any conCERN must be wrong, therefore Rossler must be wrong, and any publication that accepts his work must be wrong etc. But conCERN is obviously justified by the inconsistencies and self-contradictions and inadequacies of the CERN publications and actions (in setting up detectors etc). Therefore you have to stop using this premise in your thinking.

    However your critique of Rossler’s paper seems to be that because it is not fully mathematically formulated it must be worthless, and/or some of his description of his thinking doesn’t fit your understanding of accepted physicis re black holes etc. As regards the former, you have failed to accept that speculation about the various factors involved and how they interrelate can operate on the meta level conceptually. But it seems clear to anyone who studies very bright theorists that they think in geometric or spatial terms before nailing it down in pure mathematics. One interesting example appeared on US TV this weekend — a super whiz kid named Jake on 60 Minutes who has wowed university level classes and conferences with his math prowess from the age of eight. At one point in the original segment at…is-autism/
    he shows that his initial thinking on a topic typically involves triangles placed on top of or beside each other, at least as shown in the segment.
    That Rossler has not satisfied you with his formulae doesn’t seem very impressive so far because in the first instance he actually agreed with Einstein and was just writing an equation which was to be interpreted in a different way than we supposed ie as a correlation not between what the two clocks might show, but in the length of the time units in the different locations. So whether or not you agreed with his approach it still didn’t give you a reason to reject his overall thinking, did it?

    In the second place you appear to have picked a new quarrel with his thinking and I haven’t been able to catch up. Is this correct and can you express its conclusion in a nutshell?

    Here is the followup video of Jake Barnett if it is of interest.…lumnArea.1
    Certainly shows how a perfect memory can facilitate mathematical speculation. Let’s hope he manages to bring quantum physics, macrophysics and gravity together with common sense before we die.

    As far as your statement that no serious journal asks contributors to pay, are you specifically referring to particle physics, and if so, or not, what is your reference if any? And does Rossler’s theorem deserve to be pigeonholed thus or does it belong elsewhere? After all, you don’t think it is correctly placed under the umbrella of mathematics.

    The discussion has been going on at Lifeboat for some time. Why is it that you have not succeeded in shooting down Rossler’s thinking once and for all? You seem to state with Hansel that it is because he evades directly answering your objections. But is it not possible to state now what these objections are in a form which can be reported in a newspaper as proof of his lack of substance, or error, or whatever you wish the bottom line to be?

  52. PassingByAgain says:

    HUH? What are all these ramblings supposed to mean? Have you caught Rossler’s virus? Go work on the “Attempto” manifesto, it will keep you busy for the foreseeable future… ;-)

  53. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Anthony I am not sure whether I understand you or not — perhaps my language barrier. To my mind it is important to tell that CERNs cosmic ray argument is wrong and that such frontal collisions of pairs of equally fast protons with LHC design energy have very, very probably never happened in our entire solar system since its existence. If this often repeated pseudo general safety argument would be correct then most risks could be automatically denied — but unfortunately this is not the case. Best regards, Niccolò

    Here is the link to page 1 of this blog theme:…ent-page-1

  54. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Anthony L Thanks for your great comment – quite deep. But to ‘linger‘ is perhaps not all.
    You write “self-contradictions and inadequacies of the CERN publications and actions (in setting up detectors etc).“
    Oh yes, since a long time CERN/LSAG tell “strangelets are unlikely to be produced” but they have the CASTOR (Centauro And STrange Object Research-detector), to search for the strangelets — strange.
    Best regards, Niccolò

    Dear all if you like to go on page one of this topic you can add “/comment-page-1” at the end of the url.

  55. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Oh — I thought my first comment has been blocked… But all right. Thanks.

  56. AnthonyL says:

    Hmm..PasserBy has turned as evasive at he claims Rossler has been. But now Rossler has laid it on the line as best he can, it is time for PassingBy and his jeering squad to do the same, surely. Fair is fair, even on the irresponsible Web.

    Kindly read my post again PBy. It is not that obscure. It addresses styles of thought and whether the highest plane of genius may be above you. If not, kindly let us know with show and tell to match the eminent chaos theorist Rossler of Tubingen.

    if this is beyond you at the present time, I can lend you my panga with which I am clearing a path on the Rossler give-it-a-try post thread at…ent-100241 , after we reach the oasis of new understanding which the Professor has in mind.

  57. AnthonyL says:

    @Tottoli Precisely. The public disclaimer of any expectation of strangelets and the presence of a rather large detector (though somewhat misplaced and less likely than normal to detect its game) is sufficiently incongruent to show the two faces of CERN in crystal clarity.

    It is not helpful when CERN says one thing and does another.

    Your url to get the first fifty Comments is correct and here it is in full…ent-page-1

  58. PassingByAgain says:

    BTW, Jason of “El Naschie Watch” found a very interesting text written by a librarian at University of Colorado Denver. Check who’s first on the “List of Predatory Open Access Publishers”:….shers-2012

    YES, it’s the publisher of “African Journal of Mathematics”… ;-)

    Here is Jason’s original post:

  59. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “Seeking legitimacy, it falsely associates itself with authenticorganizations and conferences.”

    I see no evidence for the word “falsely” in the above quote. Maybe my readers do not know that Nigeria has more inhabitants than Russia. I am very grateful for what the journal is doing for the world.

  60. PassingByAgain says:

    I suppose it means that the publishing company has nothing to do with any of the conferences listed in its “conference announcements” page:

    Anyway, for the benefit of the laziest among Lifeboat’s readers, let me paste all of the relevant text from the link:

    Beall’s List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
    2012 Edition

    Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false-front or non-existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription-based or ethically-sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models.

    Academic Journals
    This bogus, Nigeria-based publisher has been around for years, and continues to increase its journal fleet of over one hundred titles from all areas of study. Seeking legitimacy, it falsely associates itself with authentic organizations and conferences.
    Do not do business with the above publishers, including submitting article manuscripts, serving on editorial boards, buying advertising, etc. There are numerous traditional, legitimate journals that will publish your quality work for free, including many legitimate, open-access publishers. If you are involved in any form of scholarly evaluation such as, hiring, tenure / promotion review, or grant funding, be skeptical of articles published by any of these publishers listed above. Reading a list of publications or a vita, it is very difficult to distinguish legitimate journals from the illegitimate ones. One of the tricks the sham publishers use is to assign authentic-sounding and appearing titles to their journals. The presence of these bogus publishers has changed the task of scholarly evaluation, which now needs a keener eye to discern articles published in fraudulent journals.

  61. PassingByAgain says:

    More on “Academic Journals” from the same librarian guy:

    Rossler, I hope you haven’t disbursed the $550 yet… ;-)