bcc Jeffrey B - you know who you are :-) - &
thanks
POSTSCRIPT:

Well, that was an interesting black hole.
I'm surprised I've come this far and never realised this.

Not being a person of published papers, the awareness has passed me by -
there is a very large world of questionable 'professional' and/or
'scientific' journals 'out there' which are paper mills to match the
'degree mills' that I've heard of.
Literally hundred of journals

             400+ on this list
http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

publising mostly real looking papers by serious enough and no doubt often
somewhat sad people at $50 - $500 range per time so that one cn add for
whatever reson to one's published papers. PhD, tenure, prestige or whatever
may be at stake. and their are even fake "impact analysis" organisations
that rate the fake journals s that they then count for whatever it is that
matters. Wow.

This is a watchinging site     http://scholarlyoa.com/       aimed at
trying to keep track of such sites.

       Here's the gatekeeper: http://scholarlyoa.com/about/



          Russell

____________________________________

I had written:

1. Windbelt
2.     Review: http://ijeit.com/vol%202/Issue%209/IJEIT1412201303_48.pdf
3.         "Journal" <sic>

Starting in about 2007 The windbelt was a good idea to try and MAY still
have its place but proved to fail badly as a means of cost effectively or
sensibly extracting a significant %age of available energy from most
airstreams.
Life happens, too bad, sad, move on ... .

Then this paper dated 2013 is written by people whose credential claim to
be reasonable. Some of the formula are standard and somewhat relevant and
correct enough and my eyes quickly glazed over (or my brain as the case may
be - I do not need to wade through such stuff until the pape ror result
proves good and useful and ...) and  I skimmed through to whatever
conclusion they might draw.
It's rubbish! The methodology (to give it a name) is akin to what you see
on You tube build a DIY wind turbine - it spins fast and make 3.792 V type
posts.
Strange. What is this 'Journal'?
Looks.
Web only.
Peer reviewed.
PEER reviewed?
peer re viewed ????
For what re what on what bass ???
Looks at editorial board.
List as long as both arms plus.
Prof Dr Prof Dr ...... Dr ... . (33 Profs, 5x Drs, 5 Deans, ...)
Mostly Indian / Asian at a glance. That can be fine enough. Any country
that can send satellites to orbit on 1% safety margins knows how to produce
people who can think and can do.
Submission policy ... Ok $US 100 up to 10 pages if not Indian. About $US60
equivalent if Indian.
Looks at archive.
3x papers this issue
Titles look just like the inscrutable rubbish you'd expect from any 'real
enough' journal.
Finally looks at end of their submission notes.
"Once a Paper is Accepted, Authors are assumed to cede Copyrights of the
paper Over to IJEIT"
Right, then.

_________________________

These people might be real people.
It MIGHT even be a real journal.
But if so, they seem to have got the idea of peer review from the realms of
modern clim...
er, no.
They seem to be dreaming.
No?


            Russell
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.