Saturday, August 15, 2009

More phishing pretending to be from Elsevier ...

I got another bizarre phishing email with the lure being something to do with Elsevier journals. Note to any gullible people out there - if Elsevier were recruiting people to do something (e.g., write papers, be editors, etc) my guess is the request would come from an Elsevier.Com email address.

Anyway here is some of the latest:

BREAKING BOUNDRIES

The Editorial Policy and Practices Of The Elsevier Journals

1. The Editorial Board

Elsevier journals are headed by Editors and an Editorial Board Members. The Editors and Editorial Board is appointed by the Publication Committee of Elsevier Journals. Editors serve a 3-year term and Editorial Board members also serve a 3-year term. Board members are chosen based on the journal’s need for representation from a particular subject area in conjunction with the individual’s commitment to maintaining high journal standards as illustrated in objective and prompt reviews.

An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the publication committee to directly assist the editors and editorial board members.

II. The Review Process

The Elsevier Journals editorial office policy requires each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. The editorial office contacts those reviewers that have been identified as qualified and/or recommended by the authors. Authors are also encouraged to submit in their cover letters names of individuals whom they feel are appropriate and qualified to review their manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript they are given a one-week time-frame to complete the review

When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to revise according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the paper based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the editors’ opinion of the paper. In some instances it is necessary to seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final decision. When an editor has completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter and reviewers’ comments are sent to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on any manuscript must be made directly to the Elsevier Journals editorial office. Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine if the author(s) have adequately addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication office and slotted for the next available issue. Elsevier journals tries to complete the review cycle in one week. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.

111. Grounds for Declining a Manuscript

Elsevier Journals will decline a manuscript after it has completed the review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal are returned to authors with substantial comments describing the basis for the decision. Manuscripts may be rejected if it is felt that the findings are not sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights, do not contain enough new information, or are too preliminary to warrant publication.

V1. Guidelines

1. Obligations of an Editor

  • The editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  • The editor should process manuscripts promptly.
  • The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.
  • The editor and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
  • The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  • Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be delegated to some other qualified person. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.
  • The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.
  • Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
  • If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
2. Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

  • Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  • A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor
  • A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
  • A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
  • A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  • A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  • Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  • A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  • Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author
  • Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within one week of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers
There is a letter attached to it and also the procedures on how to fill the form

We would appreciate if you contact us as soon as possible because we are updating our data sheet for reviewers and editors which we want to upload in our website soonest. Thank you for your co-operation. Please reply to board.elsevier@gmail.com

Please note that you are to pay $100, for more details please read the letter attached below.

Best regards

Chief editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Then the form asks for:
Please read the letter carefully before filling the form.
Before filling this form you have to accept the conditions stated regarding the payment and on our own part we are to pay you for each work sent to you.
Payment is done only when you are accepted to become a member.

Name of Editor
Date of Birth
Area of Specialization
Degree
No. of Articles Published

Name of Reviewer
Date of Birth
Area of Specialization
Degree
No. of Articles Published
And a separate PDF says
Dear colleague,
Elsevier publishes the largest journals online which is a close access
system. Each year we organize a routine test for all our reviewers
and editors to ascertain their level of research in the reviewing and
editing of articles before publication. We would like to know if you are
interested in serving as a member of our reviewing and editorial
board. You are required to pay $100 to enable us include your
name on our website. Successful candidate will be paid $30 per
page of manuscript given to review or edit. Please fill the form
attached.

3 comments:

  1. DAPHNE, the most ancient HUMAN discovered!

    16th International Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES)

    THE PROCESS OF HOMINIZATION
    By Drs Aris and Daphne N. Poulianos
    Kunming, China 31-7-09

    The title of this paper may sound a little deterministic, but I am convinced we human beings went through a longer period of hominization, than usual historians, including marxists, allow to conclude today.
    We definitely come from apes, but not African ones. Once upon a time lived in Europe over fifty species of monkeys. But an ape, which I named Helladopithecus semierectus, lived on trees, seventeen million years ago (ANTHROPOS, V3, N01, Jan. 1976, pp3 – 30, Athens).
    The well known Pikermi fauna of the Miocene period is found from Hungary through Balkans to Iran: (Wagner, A1840: Fossile Uberreste Von einem Affen und anderensau getierren aus Griechenland. Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wiss, 3, Munchen). Among other finds, a very important of that period was Mesopithecus pentelici, whose range also extended over a large territory, beyond Greece, and which is known to be a terrestrial monkey. It’s wide extension over a large territory, presupposes, that some anthropomorphic monkeys could ’’descend from trees’’ (Roghinski, J.J. & M.G. Levin, 1963: Anthropologhia, Moskva, str. 184 – 185), and begun to walk. Consequently among those “descenders” could be some andecedent forms of man.
    Another lower jaw from Attica found by a german officer during the years of occupation (1942) and described by G.Von Koenigswald, (1972: Einunterkiefez eines fossilen Hominoiden aus dem unterpliozan Griechenlands. Konikl. Nederl. Akademie Van Wetenschappen. Series B, 75, No 5, str. 385 – 394, Amsterdam), seems to be an advanced form which does not belong to Dryopithecinae, and which might also represent the beginning of African Primates. Koenigswald gave him a not very successful name “graecopithecus”. Its age is about 9 million years old. The lower jaw of another specimen found by the French expedition in 1972 near Thessaloniki, was named Dryopethicus macedoniensis. But it is also of a more advanced type than the Dryopithecinae, and according to Koenigswald is more closely affiliated with the hominids. Its age is Upper Miocene (Vallesian).
    Finally, the find described in this paper (Helladopithecus), is the upper part of a left femur found by our expedition in 1974 near Tharounia, a village in the island of Euboea. The age established lately, is Lower Miocene, about 17 million years old, confirmed by its stratigraphy, as well, and kept now in the Anthropological Museum of the Archanthropus man at Petralona, Chalkidiki.
    It is fully described and decided to be a semierectus monkey, as these authors call the whole complex of similar finds from Attica and Makedonia too.
    The new bone find is 98 mm. long (given the signal name ‘’A.E. – 1’’, seems to belong to a rather young individual, and its whole length (proportionally counted) cannot be more than 350 mm. That is the standing height should be about 140-150cm. Its weight, according to Debetz index (ICVS), approximately should be about 40-42 klgms. The stoutness index then is about 22, 85 (the same index for Orang, Chimpanzee and Gorilla, being 32-33, while for man is 18-21.
    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  2. DAPHNE, the most ancient HUMAN discovered!

    CONTINUED

    But among all these indirect methods of identifying a find, the best would be to measure exactly the Torsion angle, in order to establish the percentage of its erect position. Thus a new method was developed to measure the torsion angle in a broken femur bone. This method is based on the assumption that the torsion angle (Θ) of a bone is directly proportional to the angle of its cylindrical surface (α). (See designs 2 and 3). The axis of a bone is the line passing through all gravity centers of all its side section (AB). The edge of the cylindrical surface of a bone is the line uniting all corresponding corners of the cross – section (ΓΔ). That is: θ=Κ.α, where Κ – proportionality coefficient.
    And this assumption is based on
    a)the geometrical similarity of corresponding bones of different animals.
    b)The physico-chemical similarity of bones, and
    c)On the approximately constant ratio between animal weight and cross-sectional area, that is the stress of bone loading is almost constant (the animal weight per unit of cross-sectional bone area).
    In order to find Κ we take a similar unbroken contemporary bone, and measure its angles θ and α:
    Κ= θ. Unbroken / α. unbroken
    Then we measure the angle α of the broken bone and find angle
    θ.broken = K.a unbroken = θ. Unbroken . α. broken / α. unbroken
    Angle α is the average of angles β & γ.
    The angles β & γ can be found by photographing the bone and measuring these angles on the picture. In order to make edge ΓΔ clearly distinguishable we illuminate the bone from the side. Then ΓΔ becomes the border line of two differently illuminated surfaces. In our case we took 17 differently oriented pictures of both bones, broken and unbroken (see pictures in the text and table 1).
    The result of these procedures showed that θ (torsion) broken = 18ο , which means that this monkey was about 65% erect during his lifetime. That means he was pretty much erect, certainly more erect than most today’s African primates. Thus, it is concluded, Helladopithecus could be the forerunner of Homo.
    Finally, we raise to the rank of a separate family the whole complex of Helladopithecus finds from Greece, classifying it right after the Hominid family. As a result of the above process we have the first standing man on earth, Homo erectus trilliensis, spreading all over the world from this region of the Aegean, of the SE of Europe 13 million years ago.
    The over one hundred years long discussion among anthropologists (‘’polyphyletic versus monophyletic origins’’) sounds is ending. Monophyletic origin of man (from Helladopithecus to Homo erectus trilliensis) to our opinion is more or less confirmed who spread from Atlantic to Pacific and then all over the rest of the world. It seems every biological species on earth develops from one center, and then it spreads all over.
    In the mean time excavations are going on: A new find, a part of the skeleton of a young girl of 14 years old was found. The find was named Homo erectus trilliensis Daphnae, after the name of the lady present in this hall Mrs Daphnae A.Poulianos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bizarre comment spam!

    The same pseudo-comments were also posted to: http://evilutionarybiologist.blogspot.com/2009/07/bigfoot-or-mistaken-identity.html.

    ReplyDelete