Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Serbian journal lands in hot water after challenge on 24 hour peer review that cost 1785 euros

with 38 comments

naslovna1This story began as a report of a one-off case of potential predatory practice last month, and has escalated to an official call to disband an entire international editorial board, and an accusation against the editor of mass-scale nepotism and other publishing misconduct.

The journal, Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS) is the official publication of the Serbian Biological Society, co-published by ten organisations in Serbia and Bosnia. It was accused (on June 12) on the Scholarly Open Access blog of accepting a paper in 24 hours with no peer review, and demanding 1785 euros for publishing it.

After receiving a quick acceptance letter for his plant sciences paper, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, an outspoken critic of what he considers corruption in scientific publishing, said he was “extremely concerned” and demanded “a full explanation of the predatory publication charges” in an e-mail to the editor.

The apparent lack of peer review and request for a publishing fee when “when DOAJ indicates that there are no publishing costs” lead him to request explanation before revealing “this serious academic fraud.”

A week later – after the case was aired on Scholarly Open Access blog – he sent another e-mail asking for the paper to be withdrawn:

I am very disappointed that one week after my complaint that you have not had the courage, or the decency, of responding, or even providing an apology. This simply fortifies a dishonest attitude and position. I have thus decided to expose this case publically because it endangers the integrity of science and science publishing.”

The journal’s editor, Božidar Ćurčić from University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Biology, initially defended their procedures in an e-mail to me, as I reported on Balkan Science Beat blog, claiming the peer review had been done by two anonymous reviewers plus the editor, that it took 36 hours rather than 24 hours, and that the money was for ‘support’, not publishing costs. He also claimed that allegations in the blog about as an extremely high level of self-citation do not stand: “the self-citation is within the limit of normal procedure.”

But the Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES), which runs the Serbian national citation index in cooperation with the National Library of Serbia, started its own investigation.

Now, they have issued preliminary findings, calling for the entire editorial board and the editor to go, and for the Serbian Ministry of Science to suspend the journal and deny it funding for at least two years. According to Serbian media, the editor has now resigned, as did the management board of the Serbian Biological Society.

CEON/CEES notice says the editor did not reply to their questions, but they also examined the ethical publishing practices of ABS and their preliminary results are pretty shocking:

“The editor has systematically published in ABS an unacceptably large number of articles of his own and articles of the two members of his immediate family, a son and a daughter. Only in 2013 and in 2014 they jointly or in collaboration with other authors published in ABS between 3 and 5 papers per issue.

In ABS, we found numerous evidences of manipulative citation behaviour, aimed at boosting the impact artificially. Even a quarter of citations that ABS obtained in WoS in 2013 stems from the papers of the Editor and his family, which contributed to the ABS Impact Factor almost as much as all other Serbian authors together.

In ten of his WoS articles the Editor cited his journal more than 10 times per paper. ABS self-citation rate in WoS at the author level is far greater than of any other Serbian WoS journal. The accumulation of ‘fresh’ citations, ie. those aged up to two years (the only ones to be taken into account when calculating Impact Factor) is highly atypical compared to other journals in Biology, the group it belongs to. In only four years Impact Factor of ABS increased from 0.238 to 0.791, although the number of papers in roughly the same period almost doubled.

ABS does not implement preventive measures against plagiarism, although there is a strong need for that. In our 2010 study, dedicated only to this problem, we detected in ABS 4 plagiarized and 12 self-plagiarized articles, of which at least two were of grave scale. This was more than in any other journal under study.

For this we provided the Editorial Board of ABS (as well as the Ministry) conclusive evidence, but the Board ignored our invitation to take appropriate action and kept the practice of tolerance for plagiarism. Now, by means of the appropriate software (iThenticate) we have registered only in the ABS 2013 volume as much as 21 papers that in a valid procedure must be declared plagiarised, as well as 10 papers that would have to be qualified as self-plagiarized.

ABS resorts to subtle forms of marketing that are typical of the so-called predatory behaviour. Among others, with reference to payment of fees (donations, sic) authors are informed that their papers will be published in Online First regime, although such option is not supported.

Based on these and other findings, we estimated that violation of international publishing standards in the ABS assumed such proportions that the continuation of its indexing compromises the legitimacy of the use of SCIndeks for evaluation purposes.

Along with the notice about the decision, we called for the Ministry as regulatory and at the same time financing institution to: temporarily withhold ABS the status of a scientific journal, i.e. to suppress it from the list of categorized journals until correction of all deficiencies, but not for the shorter period than two years; deny ABS funding for at least one year; and call for the ABS publishers to urgently dismiss the Editorial Board and the Editor-In-Chief, and to promptly inform the Thomson Reuters, the publisher of WoS/JCR, about the reasons for the dismissal in order to prevent sanctions against ABS.

In parallel, we submitted the request about dismissal (3) directly to all ten co-publishers of ABS. “

We’ve contacted the journal editor, and will update this post if we hear back.

Written by micotatalovic

July 7th, 2014 at 8:30 am

Comments
  • Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) July 7, 2014 at 9:06 am

    Great work to everyone involved in muzzling this predatory journal.

    • stenf July 7, 2014 at 12:16 pm

      Yes, don’t mess with Jaime.

    • Sylvain Bernès July 7, 2014 at 1:57 pm

      Jaime Teixeira, known in this blog as a prolific commentator, deserves thunderous applause for its involvement in the case.

    • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva July 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm

      Perhaps to your surprise, there is one journal that I believe is many, many fold worse, highly non-academic in my opinion: Acta Horticulturae, published by the International Society for Horticultural Science (http://actahort.org/). That is my next target. An it is a monster with over 7500 members globally. I am struggling to achieve tangble results because, unlike Archives of Biological Sciences, which could be controlled by a higher power, namely the ministry of education of Serbia, in te case of the ISHS, it is the ISHS that calls all the shots, driven by a highly profitable business venture. Jozef Van Assche is a key player (http://www.ishs.org/ishs-board).

      So far, I have found what I claim are four clear cases of duplication, but only two have been retracted, and even so, only after formidable pressure and exposure. Otherwise, there is ZERO apetite to clean that hornest’s nest. The mangement of the ISHS, which has links to the Editor board of the Elsevier journal I was banned from for being so critical, Scientia Horticulturae, specifically the current (2010-2014) President, Professor Antonio Monteiro, and the manager for publications, Prof. Yves Desjardins, resist correcting their journal, despite claiming publically otherwise, and I claim that the ISHS is making profit off bad and stained science. The ISHS’s centennial celebration is coming up soon: http://www.ihc2014.org/. This will be my target audience to cause a revolt in the plant sciences, specifically in the horticultural sciences.

      It is time to stand up to Goliath (at least one of them). I am willing to sacrifice my name and my career for this. I did not become a scientists, spent several decades preparing and fighting for something which clearly has become something it was not originally perceived to be. I make my first public claim of WAR (in an academic sense) against the ISHS, which will potentially involve many of my colleagues who will then be forced to take sides: either side with or against academic integrity and open, honest and transparent change and disclosure.

      I can appreciate that not all (in fact most likely only a centisimal of a fraction) scientists would be able or willing to sacrifice everything in the name of science, but precisely yesterday I made that decision. I will fight them all until I have no strength left in my body.

      People only now have recognized my fight, now that I have finally been able to see the total collapse of one journal, but I assure you that I have been battling several dozen publishers and many more journals for their dishonest practices, some small, some large. But now it is time, using my limited financial resurces and technical skills, to expose everything I know and everything I think. RW is a great place to do this, and to use as a sand-box for testing my ideas and seeing the response of others.

      When exposing problems anonymously, one can breathe at the end of the day as one sees the complaint take effect, or die out. But when one uses one’s full name, as I have done, it is a very painful process, because everything becomes sacrificed. It is the so-called point of no return.

      I confirm that this statement was written by me, particularly the public declaration of academic war against the ISH’s fraudulent Acta Horticulturae.

      • JATdS July 29, 2014 at 10:55 am

        Step 1: List the positive aspects of the ISHS and Acta Horticulturae, including all of the claims of peer review, quality control and general scientific excellence. This has now been documented as a formal publication:
        Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (2014) Why the Horticultural World Needs the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) and Acta Horticulturae: A 150-Year Celebration! Journal of Advancement in Engineering and Technology volume 1, issue 4 (July-August), 25 pp. DOI: 10.15297/JAET.V1I4.03
        http://scienceq.org/archive.php

        • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva July 30, 2014 at 10:22 am

          Step 2: contact all of the members that form part of the scientific committees, keynote speakers, plenary speakers, and convenors of the 52 symposia that make up the IHC2014 (http://ihc2014.org/). This has now been done, and the following e-mail was sent to most of them (approximately 550-575 individuals) between July 28 and July 30, 2014. The purpose was to draw their attention to this case whch is clearly being covered up by the ISHS executive. My hope is that there will be at least one responsible person who will take my claims seriously and confront the ISHS head-on. The mail is as follows:
          “Dear Dr. X,

          I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes from your busy schedule to read through this e-mail, which reflects my sincerest and deepest concerns about what I perceive to be serious problems with the ISHS’s relative lack of accountability, and aspects of dishonest academic behavior related to its key publication, Acta Horticulturae. This is particularly important since the ISHS, at the IHC2014, will boast over 1600 posters and oral presentations, many of which will finally make their way into the pages of Acta Horticulturae.

          The reason why I am contacting you is that you are one of the distinct members of the global horticultural community, and part of a highly select privileged few, who will be taking the stage in Australia in a few days’ time to address other colleagues from around the world in 52 symposia (http://www.ihc2014.org/scientific_program.html#symposia). I thus wanted to bring these cases and issues to your attention just before the meeting with one hope: that you would use your position and possibly power of persuasion to convince the ISHS management (http://www.ishs.org/ishs-board) that radical and immediate change and reform is required. The timing is important as it will allow you to reflect about these facts and these serous issues a few days before you undertake your official duties at the IHC2014.

          The IHC2014 in Australia should thus not only be a time for celebration, it should be a time for deep concern, and a period of inward reflection with a view to finding a long-term solution as to how to correct the faults present in Acta Horticulturae.

          Between June and October 2013, while compiling literature related to chrysanthemum, I stumbled across several papers by Tom Eeckhaut and Johan Van Huylenbroeck, two highly respected global leaders of ornamental science. After requesting a reprint of their Acta Horticulturae paper, it quickly became apparent that one of them was a duplicate publication of a Springer Science + Business Medium paper published in Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. As you are undoubtedly well aware, duplicate publications are amongst the most serious academic offenses in science publishing and underscore the integrity of the literature. Concerned by this discovery, I immediately contacted the ISHS management, which includes Prof. Antonio A. Monteiro, the President of the ISHS (2010-2014; Portugal), the vice-president of the ISHS, Dr. Kim Hummer (USA), the treasurer, Prof. Georg Noga (Germany), the publications manager, Prof. Yves Desjardins (Canada), the Secretary responsible for innovation, industry and insight, Prof. Errol W. Hewett (New Zealand), the co-president of the ISHS XXIX IHC, Prof. I.J. Warrington (New Zealand), and the executive director ISHS secretariat, Ir. Jozef Van Assche (Belgium). Without exception, all actively ignored my requests to correct the literature and to retract the duplicate publication from Acta Horticulturae, or actively attempted to downplay my concerns.

          After several frustrating months of fruitless efforts to get the ISHS and these 7 ISHS elite to correct the literature, I decide to take my concerns public, and posted a list of papers in the chrysanthemum literature that contained serous academic offenses, including duplication, plagiarism, etc., including the duplication by Eeckhaut and Van Huylenbroeck [1]. My public disclosures took place between January and February 2014. The objective was only one: to ensure that the literature be corrected to reflect the errors and to remove unscholarly papers, or academic offenses.

          In a sudden flurry to reduce collateral damage, and under great pressure, Van Huylenbroeck requested Acta Horticulturae to retract the paper, which was achieved within the space of a few days [2].

          In addition, in a desperate attempt to suddenly save face of the ISHS in the light of this high-profile scandal, Prof. Yves Desjardins made a public promise to retract a second duplication on Vitis genetic transformation by another high-profile group of Japanese horticultural scientists (Yoichiro Hoshino, Yan-Ming Zhu, Masaru Nakano, Eikichi Takahashi, Masahiro Mii) [3]. Despite those promises, and despite the promises made by the Japanese authors and the ISHS to immediately retract this duplicate paper from Acta Horticulturae, the paper still exists, intact, leaving the plant science literature corrupted. This is fundamentally wrong at several levels, least of which is the corporate irresponsibility demonstrated by the ISHS management in the light of reports of academic problems or irregularities in Acta Horticulturae.

          Separately, having discovered serious incongruences in the authorship definition of Elsevier Ltd. and one of the world’s top horticultural journals, Scientia Horticulturae, I took the story public. My concerns were allayed to the entire Scientia Horticulturae board, which included Prof. Antonio Monteiro, the current President of the ISHS, as well as individuals such as Samir Debnath and Dietmar Schwarz, who not only serve the editor board of Scientia Horticulturae as co-Editors-in-Chief, but who are deeply involved in, as ISHS members, multiple ISHS symposia, including at IHC2014. This revolving door of power, and its potential abuse, undermines trust in horticulture and plant science. All requests to Debnath for reprints of several of his papers, including in Acta Horticulturae, have never been met, reflecting further the absolutely irresponsible behavior by this individual and the other editors and members of the community that support him even though they are fully aware of these issues. This indicates that, even in the light of public criticism and exposure of factual errors, the wider horticultural community is actively turning a blind eye. This, too, I believe, is problematic.

          In a swift move to silence my voice of criticism about the lack of academic quality control measures that appear to overlap in Acta Horticulturae and Scientia Horticulturae, I was aggressively banned from the latter journal [4]. Yet, after my public revelations about that journal, no less than 12 editors were suddenly removed and 8 new ones introduced within the space of one month. No public explanation at all, no apology to the horticultural community, not a single word of explanation. One of those revelations was the serious duplications of data, figures and tables by Gregory Welbaum and David Tay, bith of Virginia Tech (USA), in Acta Horticulturae and Scientia Horticulturae [5]. Gregory Welbaum was an editor of Scientia Horticulturae and also a prominent supporter of the ISHS. Requests for action against this academic offense by Welbaum and Tay were totally ignored by Virginia Tech, who appears to have sought, through silence, to protect the image of these scientists and their institute, rather than seeking to correct the literature and remove this serious case of data duplication.

          I and other scientists started to realize that the plant science literature, including horticulture, appears to be riddled with potentially dozens or even hundreds of papers that contain serious scientific flaws, academic fraud, duplications, or (self)-plagiarism [6]. Yet, very little is being done by the plant science community to correct these errors, except where high-profile journals are suddenly placed under the spot-light. There appears to be a wide and blind attitude towards this academic fraud, even after officially reported. This is particularly true of the ISHS management with respect to academic problems in Acta Horticulturae.

          I believe that the situation in Acta Horticulturae is serious. There are potentially dozens (if not hundreds) of papers in the >56,000 published papers in 1040 volumes that contain (self-)plagiarism, bad science, or duplications (partial or full). Yet, the ISHS management is actively trying to silence my revelations about these serious problems.

          I had an oral presentation that criticized these issues in Acta Horticulturae and the ISHS, Ref. 7632, entitled “Publishing ethics and quality control in Acta Horticulturae: a case study”, due for presentation in symposium 20. Education, Research Training & Consultancy. I felt that it would not be right to support the ISHS and that I would bring my revelations directly to you, with the sincere hope that you would seek reform. I am seeking the following changes in the ISHS and Acta Horticulturae:
          a) A full replacement of the current ISHS management with individuals who understand, and practice, strict academic integrity. Such individuals should not only make promises, they should be held fully accountable for those promises, which they should keep.
          b) The implementation of a new program of academic integrity which will involve the appointment of a special team of specialists, academics and IT specialists, to screen all >56,000 papers already published in Acta Horticulturae. Surely, from the substantial coffers of the ISHS, a certain percentage should be employed for ensuring academic integrity and for screening all past literature and correcting the literature, where necessary?
          c) This analysis of all Acta Horticulturae papers from Volume 1 to 1040 is basically a post-publication peer review [7] that has its core objectives to identify duplicated data, duplicated papers, duplicated figures, graphs or tables, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, all of which represent a serious academic offense. The continued existence of such papers undermines the academic integrity of Acta Horticulturae and the ISHS.
          d) In order for the wider scientific community to evaluate possible academic fraud, misconduct and errors / problems in an independent and transparent manner, ALL Acta Horticulturae content, from volume 1 to volume 1040+ (http://www.ishs.org/acta-horticulturae) should be made open access. This would allow any member of the global horticultural community to revise, screen and advise the new academic integrity body of any problems that need to be addressed, ether as errata, corrigenda, or retractions.
          e) All retractions (past or future) should be clearly indicated, and the retracted paper should be left published as an open access PDF file with the word RETRACTED stamped clearly, in red, for posterity to understand the errors [8].
          f) A clear time-line by which any reported case will be handled, an indication of who is the person responsible for the retraction, and what actions will be taken to publicize the error or fraud, including contacting the member research institutes, scholarly societies like COPE, and other horticultural and plant science-related entities like the ASHS, Elsevier, Springer and other main-stream publishers that publish horticulture-related journals. This is because such problematic papers can have downstream effects, such as being (unfairly) referenced in other papers. Thus, papers that reference faulty Acta Horticulturae papers should be corrected, as well.
          g) An immediate cessation of for-profit sales of PDF files and “subscriptions” to Acta Horticulturae papers (http://www.ishs.org/subscriptions), exceeding in some cases 5000 EUROS/year, which could potentially be an act of fraud, since claims of sales of academically, rigorously peer reviewed content with academic integrity, is clearly false. Such sales should be immediately and indefinitely terminated until the entire Acta Horticulturae literature has been fully examined in detail as indicated in b) and c) above.
          h) A pro-active attempt to remove protectionism, favoritism, conflicts of interest and nepotism not only from the ISHS and its high-level “contacts” around the world, but also from related journals and publishers in the commercial main-stream of plant science publishing. Nepotism distorts the balance of academia and favors some above others. This is clearly evident in some of the individuals linked to both Acta Horticulturae and Scientia Horticuiturae, as one example.
          i) The call for horticultural scientists to abandon ISHS membership and stop attending their meetings, until full reform has taken place. In other words, a call for the public boycott of the ISHS, its meetings and its activities, including the support of Acta Horticulturae, until the other (a-h) conditions are fully met and until trust in the honesty and academic integrity of Acta Horticulturae is reinstated.

          The entire global horticultural community should demand no less than these 9 conditions. Finally, another case of silence by the ISHS and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem that involves two Acta Horticulturae papers by Prof. Abraham H. Halevy, who is now deceased [6: see comment dated July 26, 2014]. This case indicates the risks of the elite in horticultural science actively protecting their own selfish interests, their institutional name and apparently the reputation of already deceased colleagues, while, without any responsibility towards the scientific literature, are sacrificing the integrity of science and science publishing. This level of irresponsibility must stop.

          In your privileged position, as one of the key members of the IHC2014, I am frankly requesting that you recognize these serious flaws in the ISHS. Ideally, it would be important to get the formal compromise of the 7 ISHS management members to draft and sign a formal declaration that takes into account aspects a-I listed above that would reinstate reform and ensure the short-term revision of the 56,000+ Acta Horticulturae papers already published. I believe that such a memorandum should emerge before the end of the IHC2014. In that sense, now that you are cognizant of these problems, the horticultural community requests you to ensure that the ISHS management are held fully accountable.

          In closing, I should add that a limited window of Acta Horticulturae, dating from about 2001-2004, which was freely available online for a certain period of time, is being analyzed in detail. I can indicate, without yet providing public details (these will be released post IHC2014), that there are serious problems (academic, scientific, duplications, plagiarism, etc.) with papers by very highly respected individuals, some of whom are serving on the boards of symposia at IHC2014, plenary speakers and/or key-note speakers. It could be extremely embarrassing for such individuals if academic accountability is not taken immediately by the ISHS and IHC2014 before August 25, when the IHC2014 is expected to finish.

          I look forward to hearing from you and to learning that a memorandum and publically visible document has been signed that will examine, in detail, the 56,000+ Acta Horticulturae papers, correct the literature and enforce other essential reforms at the ISHS.

          Sincerely,

          Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

          References
          [1] http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/27/should-this-engineering-paper-have-been-retracted/ and http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/07/journal-dumps-grain-paper-for-controversial-data/
          [2] http://www.actahort.org/books/961/961_15.htm
          [3] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/07/shigeaki-kato-up-to-23-retractions/
          [4] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/10/following-personal-attacks-and-threats-elsevier-plant-journal-makes-author-persona-non-grata/
          [5] http://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/17/elsevier-on-retraction-watch-scholarly-publishing-is-better-for-it/
          [6] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/25/weekend-reads-trying-unsuccessfully-to-correct-the-scientific-record-drug-company-funding-and-research/
          [7] http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full
          [8] Explanation and retraction notice with full reasons for the retraction (http://ptno.ogr.ar.krakow.pl/Wydawn/FoliaHorticulturae/Spisy/FH2006/PDF18012006/fh1801p08.pdf) and retracted paper (http://www.ptno.ogr.ar.krakow.pl/Wydawn/FoliaHorticulturae/Spisy/FH2006/PDF18012006/fh1801p08-R.pdf) ”

          A copy has been sent to RW, who would be wise, as science journalists, to contact the ISHS executive for comment following the public posting of this letter because I am of the belief that there are likely to be mass retractions from Acta Horticulturae if in-depth analyses of the 56,000+ papers take place, as I propose.

          • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva July 30, 2014 at 11:42 am

            Step 3: Considering that the ISHS is selling papers from this journal with clear academic problems (http://www.ishs.org/subscriptions and http://www.ishs.org/ishs-membership-categories), this would seem to me like a supermarket selling rotten fruit. The principle is identical, how can this “academic” society, which is failing to take responsibility for its core publication, charging so much money for access to many (currently unquantifiable) problematic papers? Consequently, it was important to also give a heads up to the IHC2014 sponsors (http://ihc2014.org/sponsorship.html), because they are likely to understand the financial repurcussions of my claims, and allow for a “fruitful” discussion to emerge, hopefully, at IHC2014.

  • aceil July 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    “mass-scale nepotism and other publishing misconduct”

    How common is nepotism , cronyism and favoritism in science publishing?

    • JATdS July 7, 2014 at 4:47 pm

      I update.
      On Monday, July 7, 2014 9:55 PM, Pero Sipka [e-mail edited out] wrote:
      Dear Dr. Beall,

      I am surprised that you already removed ABS from your list. If my info encouraged your decision, this was not my intention. I appreciate and share your stance that ABS led by the new Editorial Board deserves new chance. However, there is “no new editor and new editorial board”. We will continue to make the pressure, but there is no guarantee that the present Editorial board will resign or be dismissed. To my present knowledge professor Curcic is still fighting furiously to keep his position.

      I am extremely concerned that, under this circumstances, the fact that ABS was removed from your list will be interpreted by him and his cronies as a proof that there were no irregularities in ABS editing and that “all this was a revenge of individuals and a vain scientists from Portugal”, which was his explanation to the media.

      I am afraid that Dr. Silva, in his latest message, is 100% right in other aspects of this case as well.

      Is there any way that you withdraw your decision? The time will come soon, hopefully this autumn at the latest, that the co-publishers of ABS who are not willing to tolerate the journal’s present editorial practice do their job and made the situation for you clear enough to make your final decision. I sincerely hope that this decision will be based on the new Editor´s decision to condemn practices of previous Editor, to apologize to the authors who were victimized in any way, and to re-review of all papers accepted in an irregular way, to say the least.

      Best regards,

      Pero Šipka”

      I only did what I had to do, but note how I am characterized as some sort of an aggressor. So many allegations against this publisher, and I am the one who is labelled. I can also inform you that Jeffrey Beall has re-added the journal/publisher to his list, reinforcing the inconsistency in his criteria (which I have been cirtical of before here at RW*) (reason why I requested him on many occasions to implement a quantifiale system like the Predatory Score).**

      * http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/20/jeffrey-beall-scores-a-retraction/
      ** http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)21-34o.pdf

      Finally, I maintain the following: I know alot of highly respected plant scientists from Serbia, amny of whom have secretly sided with my actions to expose this, and thus the “attack” is not on Serbia, it is on academic misconduct. It is important to maintain this distinction.

      • JATdS July 29, 2014 at 10:50 am

        Update: On July 26, I received an e-mail by the new governing body:
        “Dear Sir/Madam,

        In light of recent events involving the Archives of Biological Sciences
        (ABS), Belgrade, at a meeting of the Serbian Biological Society on 17 July,
        2014, the resignations of the President/Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Dr. Bozidar
        Curcic and members of the Editorial Board of the ABS were accepted. At the
        same meeting, the Society elected a new President and members of the
        Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS, as well as
        a new President of the Society.

        Members of the Serbian Biological Society expressed their unanimous
        expectation that the newly elected individuals strictly adhere to their
        commitment to uphold all the principles, ethical standards and good practice
        of scientific publishing.

        In the hope of your understanding and continued support of the ABS, we
        remain,

        Yours sincerely,

        Dr Dusko Blagojevic, President of the Governing Board of the ABS,

        Dr. Goran Poznanovic, Editor-in-Chief, ABS”

        • JATdS July 29, 2014 at 11:58 am

          And my response, and continued concerns, detailed in a letter dated July 30, 2014 (incidentally, the e-mail of Dr. Poznanovic bounced):
          “Dear Dr. Dusko Blagojevic and Dr. Goran Poznanovic,

          At the outset, I wish to thank you for copying me on your message to Thomson Reuters and to Jeffrey Beall.

          I consider this to be a very positive development for ABS and a hopeful sign for Serbian science and research. I wish you well in your new positions and hope that you are ready to take on the complex challenges that science publishing entails nowadays.

          However, before entering any celebratory mood, I have some lingering concerns and questions about ABS. I would be grateful if you could please provide a formal response to these queries, and then also copy that statement publically, at Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/) and Beall’s blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/).

          Basically, the scientific community would like to know how you plan to be transparent about the academic activities of this journal in the future, but also how you plan to address the academic irregularities from the past.

          The specific queries I have are as follows:

          a) It appears as if no peer review has in fact taken place at ABS. It is unclear for which manuscripts, and for how long this might have been taking place. How can you prove that the papers let’s say from the past 3 years (2011-2014) have been peer reviewed, given the instant acceptance for a fee provided by your predecessor, Prof. Božidar Ćurčić? Would ABS be willing to provide the peer reviewers’ reports upon request for any paper in this period, or better yet, post all peer reports as an open access file for each paper published in this period?

          b) Will you formally retract any papers that have not been peer reviewed? This includes papers by Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, his son and daughter and other colleagues who are accused of nepotism.

          c) How will you address the manipulation of citations and self-citations that were used to boost your impact factor? Will those papers that manipulated reference lists be retracted?

          d) Between 2010 and 2014, there were numerous cases o plagiarism and self-plagiarism, some extremely serious. Will those papers be retracted? If those papers are not retracted, the message that will ultimately be sent is that ABs embraces, encourages and supports plagiarism, self-plagiarism and serious academic misconduct.

          e) How will you address the issue of predatory fees for no peer review, i.e., pay-for-publish model?

          f) Will you refund those authors who paid fees but had no academic input or peer review for their papers, including all papers that are apparently queued for publication until mid-2015?

          g) Will you inform all authors that published in ABS between 2010-2014 of these problems and your solutions?

          h) Please provide a timetable by which you plan to achieve these objectives, how you plan to address each of the 7 points listed above, and most importantly, who are the individuals who will be leading this effort and taking formal responsibility moving forward?

          I and the wider biological science community look forward to a formal response to these queries, to seeing these issues resolved, and to seeing a public disclosure of acceptance of these past and future responsibilities so that trust can be reclaimed and so that scientists can feel comfortable in submitting papers to ABS, confident in its ethical, transparent and academic posture.

          Sincerely,

          Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva”

          • JATdS August 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm

            A further update, a copy of an e-mail that was copied to me, and incorrectly referring to Beall as “Dr.” Beall delisted this predatory publisher. To date, none of my requess about how the problems listed in a-h above will be addressed, which now forces me to contact all members of the NEW editor board to demand answers about their accountability moving forward (about the past). Now for that update (August 5, 2014):
            “Dear Dr. Beall,

            As promised, I’d like to inform you about the latest update regarding Archives of Biological Sciences:

            1. The publisher of ABS, the Serbian Biological Society, held a specially convened meeting condemning unacceptable editorial practices of the Editorial Board.

            2. The Editorial Board including EIC professor Curcic resigned under pressure. Professor Curcic also resigned from the position of the President of the Society.

            3. The newly elected Editorial Board led by the new EIC made a decision about totally abandoning practice of charging authors for publication of articles and made the decision public through the new Instructions to Authors.

            4. A delegation of the Publisher and Editorial Board held a private meeting with representatives of our centre (CEON/CEES) to consult with us about necessary steps to reestablish the practice of full respect for ethical standards in the future management of the journal. It was agreed upon that an inquiry about misconducts that led to public defamation of the journal is absolutely necessary and will be conducted. It was also agreed that journal will start using a system of journal online management to ensure better transparency of the editing in general and peer reviewing in particular.

            Based on all above, we strongly suggest that you withdraw the Archives of Biological Sciences from your List of Predatory Journals and support this way the new Editorial Board in its efforts to heal the journal.

            Best regards,

            CEON/CEES
            President
            Pero Šipka”

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva December 3, 2014 at 3:25 am

    Update with verbatim e-mails (unedited, except for e-mail addresses, whihc have been deleted).

    On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:20 PM:

    “Dear Dr. Goran Poznanović,
    Editor-in-Chief, ABS

    NOTE: to all those contacted, any communication held before November 29, 2014 between me and ABS may be requested. I consider this to be a matter of public importance, and thus for maximum transparency, all documents that are available, can be provided.

    Thank you for that rapid rejection of the paper, within 24 hours. Even more so, after the expert opinion of three peers. I would be curious to know who those peers were that are expert in tissue culture of the Cycadaceae. I certainly could not find any experts on your editor board. Perhaps you would be so kind, while the information is still fresh in your mind, of indicating who the three experts were. My colleagues and I are quite happy to receive a valid and professional rejection, but we would like the proof. And, in such a case, the proof lies in the critique offered by the peer reviewers.

    You are right about the manuscript category. I did notice even short papers that are traditionally considered to be short communications are lumped together with large papers at ABS, e.g., Vol 66(4), page 1641. I should note that our manuscript was perfectly formatted to ABS, so in essence you have wasted our precious time with unscholarly and pedantic requests.

    I consider this, however, to be a very positive development since a rejection based on peer review within 24 hours is always better than an acceptance with an extortionary fee of 1785 EUR within the same time period.

    Or perhaps, as I am beginning to think, you may suddenly have recalled that it was I, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, the person who formally complained about ABS in June 2014, and caused the entire editor board to resign, that sparked the 24-hour rejection. After all, the incident has been recorded for history to judge:
    http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/
    http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/

    Considering that in fact, peer review at ABS is not blind or even double-blind would it be fair to say that my assumption is correct, or at least highly plausible, and that in fact, it is impossible to get a fair peer review at ABS, even if I wanted to, and even if the research was worthwhile, simply because there is now a permanent, engrained conflict of interest?

    Incidentally, we are almost 6 months after the “incident” with Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, the former EIC, yet, despite the serious claims of massive plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and gaming of the impact factor, I still notice that not a single erratum, expression of concern, or retraction (* except for a publisher-induced gaffe) appears for a single paper between 2010 and 2014 (http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/). Isn’t that odd? How much time will you need to correct the academic fraud that has been published in your journal, Dr. Poznanović?

    * Actually, a retraction was incorrectly published as an erratum in Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 66 (4), 1689-1689, 2014:
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404689U
    Erratum to: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758) FROM SERBIA; Sanja Ćakić, Miljana Mojsilović, D. Mihaljica, Marija Milutinović, A. Petrović and Snežana Tomanović
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1403243C
    published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 3, 2014 due to a printing error.
    The same paper has already been published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014 (DOI:10.2298/ABS1402683C).

    You have failed abysmally in keeping your promise, made on July 30, 2014, at 5:55 PM.

    And when will Thomson Reuters stop rewarding fraudulent and non-academic pseudo-scholarly journals like Archives of Biological Science that conduct fake-review rather than peer review, and that seem to enjoy maintaining corrupted literature that is filled with self-plagiarism and plagiarism? Does this say more about Serbia, about Abs, or about Thomson Reuters? Incidentally: JCR IF 2013 = 0.607 Not bad considering that there is a strong likelihood that no, weak, or fake peer review may have or continue to be taking place in your journal.

    Why does DOAJ continue to list your journal?
    http://doaj.org/toc/2325cffeabea445a988aac5f626844d6

    Of course it is highly likely that neither you nor your band of pseudo-academics that have been put in place to defend the image of Serbia, will respond, and once again, I am forced to post my claims and concerns publically.

    May I advise, as a mere bleb of the plant science community, that you and your journal get your act together. Because unless you shape up this pseudo peer review, and unless you retract every single paper that was published in ABS that was accepted automatically without peer review, or that is filled with self-plagiarism or plagiarism, you will continue to inflict damage on the good name of Serbian scientists and on the image of your country, by being passive, and without demonstrating transparency.

    This is actually quite important because your current, “improved and updated” Instructions for authors states clearly:
    http://archonline.bio.bg.ac.rs/uputstvo.pdf (page 1)
    “Articles are subjected to a three-tier pass-process: articles that meet the basic format and manuscript organization requirements will be subjected to plagiarism screening to identify misused text. Only articles that pass these two steps will be forwarded for peer review to independent referees from the area of research of the submitted manuscript. The authors can also suggest the names of three referees with email addresses, briefly explaining why they think the suggested scientists would be good referees.”

    That suggests that you are employing contradictory and false double-standards, one for yourselves, and one fake one for your authorship.

    I look forward to submitting a manuscript in 2015. I will allow a few months to pass before I submit to allow for deeper reflection and a true reform to take place.

    I am confident that you will understand the importance of dealing with this issue immediately.

    Sincerely,

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:55 PM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:

    Dear de Silva,
    thank You for suggestions and comments. We will inform of each step that is taken to address the issues You raised in Your letter.
    Sincerely,
    Dusko Blagojevic

    From: Jaime
    To: Dusko Blagojevic ; Thomsn Reuters
    Cc: Sipka + Beall
    Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 17:16
    Subject: Queries: new Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS

    Dear Dr. Dusko Blagojevic and Dr. Goran Poznanovic,
    At the outset, I wish to thank you for copying me on your message to Thomson Reuters and to Jeffrey Beall.
    I consider this to be a very positive development for ABS and a hopeful sign for Serbian science and research. I wish you well in your new positions and hope that you are ready to take on the complex challenges that science publishing entails nowadays.
    However, before entering any celebratory mood, I have some lingering concerns and questions about ABS. I would be grateful if you could please provide a formal response to these queries, and then also copy that statement publically, at Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-cost-1785-euros/) and Beall’s blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/).
    Basically, the scientific community would like to know how you plan to be transparent about the academic activities of this journal in the future, but also how you plan to address the academic irregularities from the past.
    The specific queries I have are as follows:
    a) It appears as if no peer review has in fact taken place at ABS. It is unclear for which manuscripts, and for how long this might have been taking place. How can you prove that the papers let’s say from the past 3 years (2011-2014) have been peer reviewed, given the instant acceptance for a fee provided by your predecessor, Prof. Božidar Ćurčić? Would ABS be willing to provide the peer reviewers’ reports upon request for any paper in this period, or better yet, post all peer reports as an open access file for each paper published in this period?
    b) Will you formally retract any papers that have not been peer reviewed? This includes papers by Prof. Božidar Ćurčić, his son and daughter and other colleagues who are accused of nepotism.
    c) How will you address the manipulation of citations and self-citations that were used to boost your impact factor? Will those papers that manipulated reference lists be retracted?
    d) Between 2010 and 2014, there were numerous cases o plagiarism and self-plagiarism, some extremely serious. Will those papers be retracted? If those papers are not retracted, the message that will ultimately be sent is that ABs embraces, encourages and supports plagiarism, self-plagiarism and serious academic misconduct.
    e) How will you address the issue of predatory fees for no peer review, i.e., pay-for-publish model?
    f) Will you refund those authors who paid fees but had no academic input or peer review for their papers, including all papers that are apparently queued for publication until mid-2015?
    g) Will you inform all authors that published in ABS between 2010-2014 of these problems and your solutions?
    h) Please provide a timetable by which you plan to achieve these objectives, how you plan to address each of the 7 points listed above, and most importantly, who are the individuals who will be leading this effort and taking formal responsibility moving forward?
    I and the wider biological science community look forward to a formal response to these queries, to seeing these issues resolved, and to seeing a public disclosure of acceptance of these past and future responsibilities so that trust can be reclaimed and so that scientists can feel comfortable in submitting papers to ABS, confident in its ethical, transparent and academic posture.
    Sincerely,
    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:13 AM, Dusko Blagojevic wrote:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    In light of recent events involving the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS), Belgrade, at a meeting of the Serbian Biological Society on 17 July, 2014, the resignations of the President/Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Dr. Bozidar Curcic and members of the Editorial Board of the ABS were accepted. At the same meeting, the Society elected a new President and members of the Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS, as well as a new President of the Society.

    Members of the Serbian Biological Society expressed their unanimous expectation that the newly elected individuals strictly adhere to their commitment to uphold all the principles, ethical standards and good practice of scientific publishing.

    In the hope of your understanding and continued support of the ABS, we remain,

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr Dusko Blagojevic, President of the Governing Board of the ABS,

    Dr. Goran Poznanovic, Editor-in-Chief, ABS”

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva December 27, 2014 at 11:50 am

    An update (edited slightly):

    “On Sunday, December 28, 2014 12:33 AM, Pero Sipka wrote:

    Dear Dr. da Silva,

    I felt uneasy to learn about your new troublesome issue with ABS. Please, let me know if you publish the paper rejected by ABS in some other peer-reviewed journal, since this would be a confirmation of your misgivings about ill intentions of ABS Editorial board.

    As you might know, ABS was suppressed from SCIndeks, the national citation index, we publish. Our decision was publicized (http://ceon.rs/index.php/en/88-vesti/315-archives-of-biological-sciences-suppressed-from-scindeks). The publisher, all co-publishers, as well as the Ministry of Science as financial supporter of ABS were called to take ordinary measures against publishing misconduct.

    As you know, at a particular moment I asked Jeffrey Beall to remove ABS form his List of predatory journals. However, this was just because the new editor and the representative of publishers firmly promised to distance themselves from the practices of the former editor, who was indulged in various misconduct, including citation manipulations. Instead, they continue to publish his papers massively. It seems that all they changed was abandoning author-pay model, although we insisted that this was not necessary as log as the author charges are real and fair.

    Recently the publisher urged us to lift our suppression, which we declined. We don’t intend to change our position unless ABS Editorial board fulfill all its obligations. The additional reason why we insist on this matter is that the Ministry of Education of Science of Serbia, along with its regulatory bodies failed to impose any sanctions against ABS and find out dissent way to close this affair.

    Sorry for the late response. I was ill and hospitalized for quit some time.

    Best regards,

    Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science
    Kneza Miloša 17/6
    11.000 Belgrade
    tel.+381 11 32 38 506
    http://www.ceon.rs
    President
    Pero Šipka, PhD
    professor”

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva December 27, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Another update:

    On Thursday, December 4, 2014 12:13 AM, ABS wrote:

    “Dr. Texeira da Silva,

    On re-reading your mail and the controlled civility of my response, I have the following to add.

    The ABS is not interested in your instructions and observations, and even less in the implicit insults directed at the ABS, my colleague-reviewers and myself. Reserve your questions of our competence for the entities responsible and refrain from any further attempt to “enlighten” us with your coercive and bullying missives.

    Your paper simply was not accepted and how you deal with this is your business.

    As a professional, I am willing to consider your submissions in future, but under no condition will I condone further comment from you personally on any decision that is taken.

    Dr. Goran Poznanovic
    Editor-in-Chief Archives of Biological Sciences
    Department for Molecular Biology
    Institute for Biological Research
    University of Belgrade
    Bulevar despota Stefana 142
    11060 Belgrade
    Serbia”

    • BR June 9, 2015 at 4:54 am

      I have not followed RW blog for some periods, and as a result I only read this amazing post and series of comments yesterday. I must say I find the whole affair very interesting, adding much light into clockwork behind scientific publishing. I would like to thank JATdS for all this and congratulate him for the initiative. I hope the increasing number of scientists and PhD-holders who are unhappy with the system will intensify such kind of exposure and pressure.

  • 2X Retractions June 6, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    Two retractions appear in the first issue of 2015:
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/issue.aspx?issueid=2414

    Retraction: Oberemok V, Nyadar P. The Selectivity of DNA Insecticides, Arch. Biol. Sci. 2014;66(4):1479-1483, DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404479O
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2015 67(1):339-339
    DOI:10.2298/ABS141218045E
    “This is a notice of retraction of the article: The Selectivity of DNA Insecticides, by Oberemok V. and Nyadar P., published in the Archives of Biological Sciences Vol. 66, Issue 4, 2014. Due to inadequate exchange of information at the time when the complete Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences were replaced, the authors of the above article did not receive timely information regarding the status of their paper. The authors continued their research and submitted it to another journal where it was published: Oberemok V, Skorokhod O. Single-stranded DNA fragments of insect-specific nuclear polyhedrosis virus act as selective DNA insecticides for gypsy moth control. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 2014;113: 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.05.005. Unaware of this, the Archives of Biological Sciences published the article in Vol. 66, Issue 4, 2014. The first author informed the Editorial Board about this in December 2014 and expressed his wish to have the article retracted. The Editorial Board reviewed both articles and confirmed that they partially overlap.”
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2015/0354-46641400045E.pdf

    Retraction: Nedeljković M, Kartelija G, Radenović L. Modification of the acetylcholine-induced current of the snail Helix pomatia L. by fast temperature changes. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2005;57(3):181-7, DOI: 10.2298/ABS0503181N
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2015 67(1):341-341
    DOI:10.2298/ABS1501341E
    “This is a notice of retraction of the article: Modification of the acetylcholine-induced current of the snail Helix pomatia L. by fast temperature changes, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2005, Vol. 57, Issue 3. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Nedeljkovic M, Kartelija G, Radenovic L, Todorovic N. The effect of cooling on the acetylcholine-induced current of identified Helix pomatia Br Neuron. J Comp Physiol A. 2005;191(5):445-60. This claim is correct and the entire paper, except the abstract, is a verbatim copy of the earlier one. After confirmation of this fact, the Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper immediately. We apologize to the readers of the journal that it took so many years to notice this error and to retract the paper. We request readers of the journal to directly get in touch with the editorial office and the editors of the journal for similar cases in the future, so that they can be handled promptly.”

  • Erratum query: ABS June 6, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    An erratum appears in Volume 66, Issue 4 of 2014. It claims that a paper was duplicated, but does not retract the duplicated paper. Why not? Furthermore, no apology is offered to the readership.

    Erratum
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2014 66(4):1689-1689
    DOI:10.2298/ABS1404689U
    “Erratum to: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758)
    FROM SERBIA; Sanja Ćakić, Miljana Mojsilović, D. Mihaljica, Marija Milutinović, A. Petrović and Snežana Tomanović
    DOI:10.2298/ABS1403243C
    published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 3, 2014 due to a printing error. The same paper has already been published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014 (DOI:10.2298/ABS1402683C).”

  • Muscari azureum query June 6, 2015 at 11:32 pm

    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 62 (3), 663-667, 2010
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1003663U
    STIMULATING EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT BASAL MEDIA AND CYTOKININE TYPES ON REGENERATION OF ENDEMIC AND ENDANGERED MUSCARI AUCHERI
    SERKAN URANBEY
    University of Cankırı Karatekin, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology, Biotechnology Unit, 18100 Cankiri, Turkey
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2010/0354-46641003663U.pdf

    Page 665 refers to data in Tables I and II. There are no tables in the paper. Where are the tables?

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/8F80B3C6E782E2BB170591BE6C5A5A

    • Muscari azureum query June 9, 2015 at 1:27 am

      The Editor-in-Chief has replaced the PDF file, as promised, but there is one inconsistency with what he has stated. Unlike his claim, the “substituted” PDF file, which appeared online in the past 24 hours, carries the exact same DOI, namely DOI:10.2298/ABS1003663U
      http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2010/0354-46641003663U.pdf

      In addition, there are some problems with this replaced PDF file:

      a) Readers of ABS will never know that an incorrect version existed, unless ABS publishes an erratum, as well as a note alongside the new PDF file. How will ABS address this issue and indicate to the public that there were problems?

      b) The old PDF file indicated that the page numbers were 663-667 (a 5-page manuscript), but the new PDF file shows a 7-page manuscript, STILL labelled as pages 663-667, even though the actual PDF file shows clearly that pages run until page 669.

      On the issue web-page, ABS has also changed the page numbers to reflect page 669 as the final page, but the FIRST page of the next manuscript by Xi et al. indicates that the first page is page 669, which the PDF file also displays.
      http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/issue.aspx?issueid=1074

      c) The quality of the new PDF file is extremely poor: the figures are barely visible, unlike the high resolution images of the “old” PDF file, and the text cannot be copy-pasted as in the “old” PDF fie, which indicates that some “lock” has been placed, most likely to avoid detection by Google spiders.

      The EIC and the journal ABS must clarify how this very messy situation, particularly the inconsistencies in page numbers, overlapping page numbers and vastly reduced PDF quality, will be resolved.

  • Muscari azureum query June 7, 2015 at 3:31 am

    Please compare the PDF fies of the two following papers.

    African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 9(32), pp. 5121-5125, 9 August, 2010
    Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB
    DOI: 10.5897/AJB09.1990
    ISSN 1684–5315 © 2010 Academic Journals
    Full Length Research Paper
    In vitro bulblet regeneration from immature embryos of Muscari azureum
    Serkan Uranbey
    Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Çankırı Karatekin, Çankiri/Turkey.
    Accepted 16 March, 2010
    http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-abstract/38CEB6928529
    http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/view/92139

    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 63 (1), 209-215, 2011
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1101209U
    UDC 582.573.81:57.08
    IN VITRO BULBLET REGENERATION FROM IMMATURE EMBRYOS OF ENDANGERED AND ENDEMIC Muscari azureum
    S. URANBEY
    University of Cankırı Karatekin, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology, 18000 Cankiri, Turkey
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2011/0354-46641101209U.pdf

    ttps://pubpeer.com/publications/2C4ABAEBDA4CE5B75BD630F8B3FF9A

    • Muscari azureum query June 7, 2015 at 3:34 am

      PubPeer link appears to be missing the first h:
      https://pubpeer.com/publications/2C4ABAEBDA4CE5B75BD630F8B3FF9A

    • Muscari azureum query June 8, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      The EIC provides a response, and decision, in 24 hours.

      “Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 at 8:48 PM
      From: ABS
      To: [redacted]
      Subject: Re: Serkan Uranbey (Archives of Biological Science) duplication

      To all recipients regarding the raised issues:

      We have inspected these issues carefully and concluded the following:

      1. Your claim that the paper Uranbey S. In vitro bulblet regeneration from immature embryos of endangered and endemic Muscari azureum. Arch Biol Sci. 2011;63(1):209-15 is a duplicate copy of Uranbey S. In vitro bulblet regeneration from immature embryos of Muscari azureum. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010;9(32):5121-5 is correct. Therefore, the Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper immediately. This retraction will be published Online First with a DOI number today and it will be included in ABS 67(3) since the preparation of issue 2 have already started.

      2. This problem is more complicated. At the time when this issue of the ABS was published, the ABS was managed by a team which was responsible for several unethical breaches in scientific publishing. This team was changed in the summer of 2014 and since then a new team is addressing these issues. DoiSerbia, which is a service of the National Library of Serbia, represents all national scientific journals in CrossRef. It is the journals responsibility to inform DoiSerbia of any change regarding all published articles and contents of an issue. In this specific instance this rule was not adhered to. DoiSerbia initially obtained a PDF file of this article, which did not contain the said tables. When the editorial team of the ABS became aware of the omission of the tables, they changed the PDF files on the web site of the journal, provided an arbitrary DOI number, as well as published the issue with the corrected version of the paper without informing DoiSerbia. We were made aware of this problem after we received your email. We have informed DoiSerbia of this and together with DoiSerbia, we will address this problem.

      The incorrect PDF file of the article on DoiSerbia has been exchanged with the correct version (the version with the tables) and CrossRef is informed. The article will have two DOI numbers: a primary and a secondary number. *

      The new editorial team wishes to express its sincere apology to the scientific community for the mismanagement of scientific information. The new editorial team will correct all mistakes while striving to ensure accurate, timely, fair and ethical publication of scientific papers.

      Dr. Goran Poznanovic
      Editor-in-Chief Archives of Biological Sciences
      Department for Molecular Biology
      Institute for Biological Research
      University of Belgrade
      Bulevar despota Stefana 142
      11060 Belgrade
      Serbia

      URL: [http://serbiosoc.org.rs/arch/index.htm]”

      * Refers to:
      https://pubpeer.com/publications/8F80B3C6E782E2BB170591BE6C5A5A

  • Peduncalate oak query June 8, 2015 at 6:40 am

    Data in the tables of these two papers is being questioned at PubPeer.

    Batos B. 1, Z. Miletic 1, S. Orlovic 2, and D. Miljkovic 3 (2010) Variability of nutritive macroelements in peduncalate oak (Quercus robur L.) leaves in Serbia.- Genetika, Vol 42, No. 3, 435-453.
    1 Institute of Forestry, Kneza Viseslava 3, Belgrade, Serbia
    2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
    3 Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stankovic”, Belgrade, Serbia
    UDC 575:630
    DOI: 10.2298/GENSR1003435B
    http://dgsgenetika.org.rs/abstrakti/vol42no3_rad5.pdf

    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 66 (4), 1345-1355, 2014
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404345B
    POPULATION VARIABILITY AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MACROELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PEDUNCULATE OAK (QUERCUS ROBUR L.) LEAVES AND SURROUNDING SOILS
    BRANISLAVA BATOS1,*, SAŠA ORLOVIĆ2, ZORAN MILETIĆ1, LJUBINKO RAKONJAC1 and DANIJELA MILJKOVIĆ3
    1Institute of Forestry, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    2Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
    3Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641404345B.pdf

    PubPeer
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/336F5A49DDD1A98CEE411A08C034C2 (2010)
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/E60EE34C96F297EE0DD04394AD839E (2014)

    • Peduncalate oak corrigendum June 10, 2015 at 4:02 pm

      Within 3 days of reporting to PubPeer, the editor and the authors, a corrigendum has appeared online:
      https://pubpeer.com/publications/E60EE34C96F297EE0DD04394AD839E#fb31710

      http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2015%20OnLine-First/0354-46641500073E.pdf

      “Batos B, Orlović S, Miletić Z, Rakonjac Lj, Miljković D. Population variability and comparative analysis of macroelement concentrations in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) Leaves and surrounding soils. Arch Biol Sci. 2014;66(4):1345-55
      DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404345B

      The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that the results in Table 1 and in Table 2 presented in the article: Population variability and comparative analysis of macroelement concentrations in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) Leaves and surrounding soils published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2014, Vol. 66, Issue 4 partially overlap with the results in Tables 1, 2, 3a and 3b, published in the article Batos B, Miletić Z, Orlović S, Miljković D. Variability of nutritive macroelements in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) leaves in Serbia. Genetika. 2010;42(3):435-53, DOI: 10.2298/GENSR1003435B without proper cross-referencing.

      This claim is correct and we are reporting this overlap in order to provide appropriate cross-referencing to the earlier work.”

  • Pseudomonas savastanoi query June 8, 2015 at 6:44 am

    Queries about the origin of select figures in a 2014 ABS paper are being made at PubPeer.

    2014
    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 66 (4), 1393-1400, 2014
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404393P
    A METHOD FOR THE RAPID DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF HALO BLIGHT PATHOGEN ON COMMON BEAN
    TATJANA POPOVIĆ1,*, JELICA BALAŽ2 and SLAVIŠA STANKOVIĆ3
    1 Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    2 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Novi Sad, Serbia
    3 Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641404393P.pdf

    2012
    Scientia Agricola 69(4), 265-270
    Application of semi-selective mediums in routine diagnostic testing of Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. phaseolicola on common bean seeds
    Tatjana Popovic, Predrag Milovanovic, Goran Aleksic, Veljko Gavrilovic, Mira Starovic, Mirjana Vasic, Jelica Bala
    1 Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, Teodora Drajzera, 9, PO Box 33-79 – 11040 – Belgrade – Republic of Serbia.
    2 Galenika/Fitofarmacija, Batajniki drum b.b. – 11080 – Belgrade – Republic of Serbia.
    3 Institute for Field and Vegetable Crops, Maksima Gorkog 30 – 21000 – Novi Sad – Republic of Serbia.
    4 University of Novi Sad/Faculty of Agriculture, Dositeja Obradovia 8 – 21000 – Novi Sad – Republic of Serbia.
    DOI: 10.1590/S0103-90162012000400005
    http://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/22735
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-90162012000400005&script=sci_arttext
    http://www.scielo.br/readcube/epdf.php?doi=10.1590/S0103-90162012000400005&pid=S0103-90162012000400005&pdf_path=sa/v69n4/v69n4a05.pdf

    2008
    Pestic. fitomed. (Beograd), 23 (2008) 81-88 UDC: 632.35:635.652:579.64
    Pestic. Phytomed. (Belgrade), 23 (2008) 81-88 Naučni rad * Scientific Paper
    Razrada metoda za dokazivanje Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. phaseolicola na semenu pasulja
    Jelica Balaž1, Tatjana Popović1, Mirjana Vasić2 i Zorica Nikolić3
    1 Poljoprivredni fakultet, 21000 Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, Srbija
    2 Institut za ratarstvo i povrtarstvo, 21000 Novi Sad, Maksima Gorkog 30, Srbija
    3 Nacionalna laboratorija za ispitivanje semena, 21000 Novi Sad, Maksima Gorkog 30, Srbija
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/41390020_Elaboration_of_Methods_for_Detection_of_Pseudomonas_savastanoi_pv._phaseolicola_on_Bean_Seeds
    No DOI.

    http://imgur.com/8Vjselg
    http://imgur.com/TdjdJY2

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/758F4DCA3E5950490427FB9C9B4360 (2014)

    • Pseudomonas savastanoi retraction June 10, 2015 at 3:54 pm

      Less than 3 days after posting the concerns at PubPeer, and contacting the editoril office and authors, a retraction has appeared online:
      http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0354-46641500074E#.VXiVHsuJjIV
      “This is a notice of retraction of the article: A method for the rapid detection and identification of halo blight pathogen on common bean, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2014, Vol. 66, Issue 4. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that the results presented in Fig 1. in this article have already been presented in Fig 3. in the article: Balaž J, Popović T, Vasić M, Nikolić Z. Elaboration of methods for detection of Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. phaseolicola on bean seeds. Pesticidi i fitomedicina. 2008; 23(2):81-8. DOI: 10.2298/PIF0802081B; and the results presented in Fig 2. have already been presented in Fig 4. in the article: Popović T, Milovanović P, Aleksić G, Gavrilović V, Starović M, Vasić M, Balaž J. Application of semi-selective mediums in routine diagnostic testing of Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. phaseolicola on common bean seeds. Sci Agric. 2012;69(4):265-70. After confirmation of this fact, the Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper immediately.”

      At PubPeer, the authors state: “Anyhow, It state that we made mistake because in article from 2014 we did not highlight in text that photos were already used in our previous references. From that reason it is decided to retract the article from 2014.”
      https://pubpeer.com/publications/758F4DCA3E5950490427FB9C9B4360#fb31711

  • Cordyceps pruinosa query June 8, 2015 at 6:48 am

    Please compare the PDF fies of the two following papers.

    Chiang Mai Journal of Science Vol. 42 No. 2 (APRIL 2015) Page 317 – 330
    Characterization of a new Cordyceps pruinosa isolate producing cordycepin and N6-(2-hydroxyethyl)-adenosine
    Zebin Meng [a.b], Tingchi Wen [a], Jichuan Kang* [a], Bangxing Lei [a], Kevin D. Hyde [c]
    [a] The Engineering and Research Center of Southwest Bio-Pharmaceutical Resources of National Education Ministry of China, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China.
    [b] Guizhou Bioresource Development and Utilization Key Laboratory, Guizhou Normal College, Guiyang 550018, China.
    [c] Institute of Excellence in Fungal Research, School of Science, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand.
    http://it.science.cmu.ac.th/ejournal/journalDetail.php?journal_id=5754

    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 66 (4), 1411-1421, 2014
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1404411M
    CORDYCEPS PRUINOSA PRODUCES CORDYCEPIN AND N6-(2-HYDROXYETHYL)-ADENOSINE IN CULTURE
    ZEBIN MENG1,2, TINGCHI WEN1, JICHUAN KANG1,*, BANGXING LEI1 and KEVIN D.HYDE3
    1 Engineering Research Center of Southwest Bio-Pharmaceutical Resources, Ministry of Education, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    2 Guizhou Bioresource Development and Utilization Key Laboratory, Guizhou Normal College, Guiyang 550018, China
    3 Institute of Excellence in Fungal Research, School of Science, Mae FahLuang University, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641404411M.pdf

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/16323786288FFDB068F905A72F3543

  • Ixodes ricinus tick retraction June 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    Another retraction from ABS has been detected.
    Archives of Biological Sciences, Belgrade, 66 (3), 1243-1251, 2014 DOI:10.2298/ABS1403243C
    MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758)
    FROM SERBIA
    SANJA ĆAKIĆ1*, MILJANA MOJSILOVIĆ2, DARKO MIHALJICA1, MARIJA MILUTINOVIĆ1, ANDJELJKO PETROVIĆ2 and SNEŽANA TOMANOVIĆ1
    1 Laboratory for Medical Entomology, Department of Parasitology, Center of Excellence for Toxoplasmosis and Medical Entomology, Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, Dr. Subotića 4, 11129 Belgrade, Serbia
    2 Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/90733A72097A5D2026F0E1552AACF4
    Original
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641402683C#.VXgH5suJjIU
    Erratum:
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0354-46641404689U#.VXgIFMuJjIU
    Retraction notice:
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0354-46641403243C#.VXgIWcuJjIV
    “Erratum to: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF COI GENE OF IXODES RICINUS (LINNAEUS, 1758) FROM SERBIA; Sanja Ćakić, Miljana Mojsilović, D. Mihaljica, Marija Milutinović, A. Petrović and Snežana Tomanović DOI:10.2298/ABS1403243C published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 3, 2014 due to a printing error. The same paper has already been published in the ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, BELGRADE Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014 (DOI:10.2298/ABS1402683C).”

  • Biotechnical education June 11, 2015 at 3:00 am

    What is biotechnical education?

    Please compare these two PDFs.

    A school garden in biotechnical education
    Pogačnik M., Žnidarčič D., Strgar Jelka
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2014 66(1):393-400
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1401393P
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641401393P.pdf

    A school garden in biotechnical education
    Pogačnik M., Žnidarčič D., Strgar Jelka
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2014 66(2):785-792
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1402785P
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641402785P.pdf

  • Beagles query June 14, 2015 at 11:35 am

    Please compare these two PDF files.

    Life Science Journal 2013; 10(2): 1537-1542
    Walaa Mohamaden, Heng Wang, Huawei Guan, Xia Meng, Jianji Li. Effect of potassium oxalate injection on serum and kidney tissue of beagle dogs.
    ISSN:1097-8135; No DOI
    http://www.lifesciencesite.com
    http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1002/ (paper 208)*
    http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1002/208_B01074life1002_1537_1542.pdf

    Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 65 (4), 1363-1370, 2013
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1304363M
    Effect of potassium oxalate on liver function and kidney tissue of dogs (beagles)
    WALAA MOHAMADEN, HENG WANG, HUAWEI GUAN and JIANJI LI
    Department of Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2013/0354-46641304363M.pdf
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641304363M#.VX0pKssVjIV

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/D58406A1BD4DA5DF4F0277BA06F010

  • Vitamin E query June 14, 2015 at 11:49 am

    Please compare these two PDF files.

    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2013 65(4):1435-1445
    The protective effect of vitamin E against genotoxicity of lead acetate intraperitoneal administration in male rat
    Nadia Ait Hamadouche 1, Nesrine Sadi 1, Omar Kharoubi 1, Miloud Slimani 2, Abdelkader Aoues 1
    1 University Es-senia, Department of Biology, Laboratory of Experimental Biotoxicology, Biodepollution and Phytoremediation, Oran, Algeria
    2 University Dr Moulay Tahar, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Saida, Algeria
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1304435H
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641304435H#.VX1kMcsVjIU
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2013/0354-46641304435H.pdf

    Notulae Scientia Biologicae 5(4): 412-419
    The protective effect of vitamin E against genotoxicity of lead acetate intraperitoneal administration in male rat
    Nadia AIT HAMADOUCHE 1, Nesrine SADI 1, Omar KHAROUBI 1, Miloud SLIMANI 2, Abderlkader AOUES 1
    1 Department of Biology, Laboratory of Experimental Biotoxicology, Biodepollution and Phytoremediation, Dr Moulay Tahar Oran, Algeria;
    2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Saida, Algeria
    Received 28 July 2013; accepted 28 August 2013
    No DOI.
    http://notulaebiologicae.ro/index.php/nsb/article/view/9125

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/DB0B2BE66908DECA1DB812CE9B3E5A

    • Vitamin E query June 16, 2015 at 10:01 am

      Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 at 9:32 PM
      From: “Radu Sestras”
      To: [redacted]
      Cc: [redacted]
      Subject: Re: Abderlkader AOUES (Archives of Biological Science) duplicate publication report

      “Dear all,

      As it is in all of our interest to provide a correct and academic procedure for published papers, we are doing our best to solve this issue.

      Therefore, the editorial board is going to discuss further the situation regarding the paper.

      Even so, the following measures have been decided and are to be applied as now:

      – All authors of the paper, namely Nadia HAMADOUCHE, Nesrine SADI, Omar KHAROUBI, Miloud SLIMANI, Abdelkader AOUES, are considered ‘persona non grata’ from now on, and are banished to publish in our Journal

      – This situation is to be notified to the institutions affiliated for each author, so that an official note will be acknowledged.

      We kindly ask you to consider that all papers are checked for plagiarism when accepted for peer review (in this case, July 2013). Is it impossible to detect papers that are not indexed at that moment, so we can only rely on the correctitude of authors on this.

      We will let you all know about our future decision.

      All the best,

      Editors

      Notulae Scientia Biologicae”

  • Rat query June 24, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    Please compare the two following PDF files. An apparently same photo shows very different things.

    Novel acute stressor effects on interscapular brown adipose tissue sympathetic inervation and UCP-1 content in chronically isolated and spontaneously hypertensive rats
    Lakić Iva, Drenča Tamara, Đorđević Jelena, Vujović P., Jasnić N., Đurašević S., Dronjak-Čučaković Slađana, Cvijić Gordana
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2011 63(3):589-596
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1103589L
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2011/0354-46641103589L.pdf

    Single and combined effects of acute and chronic non-thermal stressors on rat interscapular brown adipose tissue metabolic activity
    Cvijić Gordana, Lakić Iva, Vujović P., Jasnić N., Đurašević S., Dronjak-Čučaković Slađana, Đorđević Jelena
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2013 65(3):919-927
    1 Institute of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    2 Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Endocrinology, Institute of Nuclear Sciences “Vinča”, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1303919C
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2013/0354-46641303919C.pdf

    The comparison:
    http://imgur.com/jlqAOeq

    PubPeer:
    2011: https://pubpeer.com/publications/46AFBB57B66BFD39B45773201487BA
    2013: https://pubpeer.com/publications/EE72A61D67BE768A6AAB4BE690286E

  • Wuhar lake zooplankton query June 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    A case that involves 6 papers, one of which is ABS, has emerged at PubPeer.

    Paper 1
    African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 7(5), 329-335, May 2013
    Some crustacean zooplankton of Wular lake in Kashmir Himalaya
    Javaid Ahmad Shah*, Ashok K. Pandit
    Centre of Research for Development (CORD), University of Kashmir, Srinagar- 190006, Kashmir, India.
    Accepted 10 May, 2013
    DOI: 10.5897/AJEST2013.1483 (DOI cannot link to PubPeer)
    ISSN 1996-0786; Academic Journals*
    http://www3.iupui.academicjournals.org/journal/AJEST/article-stat/C1957A117177
    http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380541055_Shah%20and%20Pandit.pdf

    Paper 2
    Journal of Evolutionary Biology Research 6(1), 1-4, February 2014
    Taxonomic survey of crustacean zooplankton in Wular Lake of Kashmir Himalaya
    Javaid Ahmad Shah*, Ashok Kumar Pandit
    Centre of Research for Development, University of Kashmir 190006, J&K, India
    Accepted 9 December, 2013
    DOI: 10.5897/JEBR2013.0053
    ISSN 2141-6583; Academic Journals*
    http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1393922065_Shah%20and%20Pandit.pdf
    http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JEBR/article-abstract/9E451C944944

    Paper 3
    Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 16: 976-983. 2013.
    Relation between physico-chemical limnology and crustacean community in Wular Lake of Kashmir Himalaya.
    Javaid Ahmad Shah, Ashok K. Pandit
    http://www.scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.2013.976.983
    http://www.scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=pjbs.2013.976.983&linkid=pdf
    Publisher: ANSInet*
    DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2013.976.983
    URL: http://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.2013.976.983

    Paper 4
    Archives of Biological Sciences, 2013 65(3):1063-1068
    Seasonal succession of crustacean zooplankton in Wular Lake of the Kashmir Himalaya
    Shah Javaid Ahmad, Pandit Ashok Kumar
    DOI: 10.2298/ABS1303063B
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641303063S#.VYuyrcsVjIU
    http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2013/0354-46641303063S.pdf

    Paper 5
    Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences 5(7): 410-417, 2013
    Diversity and abundance of cladoceran zooplankton in Wular Lake, Kashmir Himalaya
    Javaid Ahmad Shah, Ashok K. Pandit
    Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Centre of Research for Development, University of Kashmir 190006, J&K (India)
    ISSN: 2041-0484; e-ISSN: 2041-0492
    Publisher: Maxwell Scientific Organization*
    Submitted: April 17, 2013; Accepted: May 03, 2013; Published: July 20, 2013
    http://www.maxwellsci.com/jp/abstract.php?jid=RJEES&no=340&abs=07
    http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjees/v5-410-417.pdf
    No DOI.

    Paper 6
    Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment 5(2), 24-29, February, 2013
    Distribution, diversity and abundance of copepod zooplankton of Wular Lake, Kashmir Himalaya
    Javaid Ahmad Shah 1*, Ashok K. Pandit 1, G. Mustafa Shah 2
    1 Centre of Research for Development (CORD), University of Kashmir, Srinagar-190006, J & K, India
    2 Department of Zoology, University of Kashmir, Srinagar-190006, J & K, India
    DOI: 10.5897/JENE12.100
    ISSN 2006 – 9847; Academic Journals*
    http://hwww.academicjournals.org/journal/JENE/article-stat/1C9DA2111649
    http://hwww.academicjournals.org/article/article1380115672_Shah%20et%20al.pdf

    * These publishers are listed at http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

    http://imgur.com/kg33uwb
    http://imgur.com/myyBjpa
    http://imgur.com/nDv8bvz
    http://imgur.com/waS5N8c
    http://imgur.com/IqxJ2E6

    Paper 2: https://pubpeer.com/publications/351AE2D9D9C994EB5E919D7E13DD06
    Paper 3: https://pubpeer.com/publications/C277E86A31FF599386FAD56FD2FE90
    Paper 4: https://pubpeer.com/publications/07846C915526AF0991EB0CCDA571F1
    Paper 6: https://pubpeer.com/publications/137E4EA2B001324FB93F59375F6DCC

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.