Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

More information is required!

In which country is it based? Whatis its postal address? Who are are its Directors?

Joe Gatt (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This outfit boast a high impact factor for its myriad claimed publications, and it offers an astounding number of "international" meetings. I can't find evidence supporting its legitimacy. I encountered one operation, a different one, that was a definite scam, posting online "journals" that contained articles plagiarized from established journals. That operation solicited publication fees from authors submitting new material. Between that and the way information can be gathered for spamming, identity theft and other malicious purposes, one must regard with suspicion any organization that has not been recognized by familiar, reliable ones and that fails to provide details about its physical location, ownership, source of funding, governing structure, membership, etc. Myron (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this organization is suspect. The peer review process some of the conferences associated with this organization have recently come under fire. This article seems to be an attempt at boosting its legitimacy; I vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.170.131 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Despite references to this organisation from other institutions I see no signs of content that would suggest that this is a legitimate and active organisation. They claim to be organizing conferences hosted by 'cambridge university' but having communicated with them, the University of Cambridge's conference team has no knowledge of these events or the organisation. Jamesd (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this seems to be a shady outfit, but the article was previously kept at AfD, so it cannot be PRODded any more. Feel free to take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Very shady indeed, but it is an active organisation, and it is becoming very well known. A Google search for "WASET scam" returns 6430 results. Researchers around me definitely know them, but it might only be because they run a conference with the same name as the main conference in our field (legit/scam). If it was AfDed, I would vote to keep. --Valmi ✒ 16:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

undue?

pls see Talk:Predatory open access publishing#fringe theory? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article mentions that Beall lists WASET as a "potential, possible, or probable" predatory publisher. I have attempted to add additional sources for this claim Chrisma0 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This WASET is a scam

This is a known scam, but some users keep coming back to change the description and mislead the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifraude (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Editors recommended opening an RfC that discussed specific wording considered to be WP:UNDUE or inaccurate.

Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page reads like an attack page, and none of the sources on which the text depends are RS at this time. I'm putting out an RfC so that more experienced editors can become involved and help broaden the discussion on how to improve this article. Tonyinman (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you start by adding some of the clearly reliable sources I provided at the ongoing AfD you started, which is clearly going to end as keep? I see they've now been added. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy for your to add in any sources which are reliable - ie not blogs - which you feel support the claims made in the article. Re the rest of your comment, any provocation or personal comments will be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Summoned by bot. I made a few minor changes to the article and tried to make it more balanced, but everything I'm seeing suggests that the negative perceptions are warranted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I see as well, the contents are accurate, the wording is unfriendly and needs more work. Damotclese (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree it reads like an attack page -- does not follow usual style information of date, history, activities, self-statements ... just all complaints and one-sided attacks. Does not a reputable or objective presentation of facts. Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Seems accurate though -- Everything in the article appears to be well referenced and well sourced, I don't see anything actually wrong about the contents of the article. The rhetoric used could be toned down some, yes, but everything in the article appears to be accurate. I was called by the bot so I don't have any interest in the article, though as I said, the article's contents are solid, the wording could be toned down some, that is all. Damotclese (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• There is no point having an RfC based on nothing. Please present some text that is WP:UNDUE or inaccurate, with a brief explanation. Or, provide a proposal to add text with a source. An RfC should concern an actionable proposal. Even if everyone agreed that the current article needed work, the RfC would be a waste of time because it would not lead to agreement about what edits should occur, other than the aspiration to improve the article which we all agree with. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree that there is no need to have a request for comment when there is nothing specific to comment on. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A warning from the Society for Archaeological Sciences

This is actually from SASnet, an electronic network for the Society for Archaeological Sciences.[1]

"Dear SASnet subscribers, The World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology (WASET) is a well-known predatory publisher and organizer of junk conferences (e.g. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferences-now-outnumber-official-scholarly-events). WASET does not use standard peer-review procedures for submissions, often charges exorbitant registration fees, and organizes dozens to hundreds of "conferences" concurrently in the same venue. It has come to the attention of the SAS board that WASET is organizing at least three conferences ostensibly about archaeological science and archaeometry in the next six months. These events include:

-ICAST 2018: 20th International Conference on Archaeological Science and Technology in Rome, Italy, March 5-6, 2018 -ICASA 2018: 20th International Conference on Archaeological Science and Archaeometry in Miami, USA, March 12-13, 2018

-ICAS 2018: 20th International Conference on Archaeological Sciences in Paris, France, April 19 - 20, 2018

These events are NOT endorsed by the SAS or any other learned or professional society to the best of our knowledge. We encourage SAS members and supporters who see this message to share it with any colleagues to who it may apply. Predatory publishers and conference organizers are an unfortunate part of the academic landscape but we can all help mitigate the damage they cause by being vigilant and speaking up if something looks like a potential scam.

Best regards,

Andrew Zipkin

SAS Vice-President for Social Media and Outreach"

I'm not suggesting this be used as a source, just that this is another example of the problem. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgot. The message included urls relating to Waset but waset.org is spam blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the fact that WASET has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, meaning that links to it are regarded as spam, be noted in the article itself? Or is that too self-referential and Original-Research-y? XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Too self-referential, we aren't a reliable source! :-) Doug Weller talk 16:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

True. I'm sure there's a rabbit hole of policies and guidelines and acronyms for writing about Wikipedia on Wikipedia, because acronyms are what we do.... Oh, I found that SAS message posted on their Facebook page, in case anyone wants a link to it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the notification that Doug Weller posted, but if it is available, it seems to me that it could be a RS for the article. Perhaps it is at the Society's public Facebook page? (I am not on Facebook.) Follow up: I have found the post on Facebook The Society for Archaeological Sciences is a red link, but I think it could be blue - it is written up in the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology and its website contains information on its history extending back 40 years. It publishes an open access journal, The Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin ISSN 0899-8922 and supports the publication of the Wiley journal Archaeometry [2] and the Elsevier publication Journal of Archaeological Science. It also collaborates with Springer in publishing the Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science book series. Other mentions of the society: [3] [4] [5] Given that a likely notable learned society issued the warning about WASET fake versions of a symposium series that the Society has supported for many years, the information appears tome to satisfy WP:SPS. Thoughts?

I also wonder if someone can access the full text of this article, doi 10.1108/09504121011045809 to see if it might be a suitable source for the WASET article? EdChem (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem:, I also thought we could have an article for the society but haven’t Nat tome. As for the article you linked to, try resource requests. Doug Weller talk

@EdChem: I was able to see the notification on the SocArchSci public Facebook page here (I don't have a Facebook account either). XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

More sources

This Canadian source[6] discusses WASET and OMICS.

This source is included in the article as a reference to why researchers would publish with WASET --Chrisma0 (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another Canadian source[7] in French also discusses both. Universities are being scammed but worse respectable academics are cooperating, publish or perish! Allied Academies is a similar organisation recently bought by OMICS and is discussed in this source. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've included the source as a reference in the article for the fact that the WASET website lists a section of "featured" popular tourist destinations as conference locations. --Chrisma0 (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking of WASET critical websites

The Turkish SoL (newspaper) published an article[8] in 2016 on fake conferences and WASET. The article claims that a lawyer (Ceyhun Gökdoğan), on behalf of WASET founder Cemal Ardil, petitioned the Istanbul 10th Criminal Court of Peace to block access to Internet sites critical of WASET (e.g. "Wasetmania"[9] and "Copy, Shake, and Paste"[10]) on 17 March 2016 as part of the Internet regulation in Turkey. The article reports that the request was accepted and presents an image of the request document[11].

I was unable to find any more information on this, especially since I mostly rely on translations. Does anyone know more? --Chrisma0 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Media attention July 2018

The following source by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists should be included[12]. --Chrisma0 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "Dozens of reporters from media outlets in Europe, Asia and the United States have analysed 175,000 scientific articles published by five of the world’s largest pseudo-scientific platforms including India-based Omics Publishing Group and the Turkey-based World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, or Waset."

Here is an article by Motherboard "Hundreds of Researchers From Harvard, Yale and Stanford Were Published in Fake Academic Journals"[13] which mentions WASET.--Chrisma0 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a video of the talk given at DEF CON 26 by Svea, Suggy, Till on "Inside the Fake Science Factory"[14] which mentions WASET. Interesting points from the video: --Chrisma0 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Picture of Bora Ardil [minute 17:01]
• Cemal Ardil is Bora Ardil's father [minute 19:35]
• ~13 events in ~13 different cities each month, ~5000 "conferences" a month [minute 20:15]
• A year: 157 events, 48 cities, 35 countries, 53,476 conferences in total [minute 20:15]
• 3,851,100 estimated annual revenue of WASET [minute 20:21]

Proposed deletion

I suggest also to delete this page as this organization does not exist. It is an online fraud. Most of the committee members in any promoted conferences have no idea how their name is written in their list. The organization has no legal address. They are abusing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRRahmani (talk • contribs) — HRRahmani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I would argue that WASET does very much exist, even though I agree that it is a fraudulent organization (in the predatory publishing sense), which is run by few people. However, this does not detract from WASET's noteworthiness. The fact that committee members were included in WASET conferences without their knowledge is included in the "Conferences" section of the article (including references) and is relevant to the organization's way of operating. As the article seems to correctly describe WASET as a predatory publisher and describes the operation of these "scam" conferences, I do not see how WASET is abusing Wikipedia. The article does not paint the organization in a positive light. It includes sentences such as "The conferences are low-quality, described in one case as a Potemkin village". In my mind, this article serves as an important overview of information regarding WASET for people looking to educate themselves on the organization. Do you have concrete suggestions for improving the article? I'd be happy to help further. Chrisma0 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, WASET really does exist. You can't run scams if you don't exist. There is no way that a page documenting WASET's dishonest dealings, using reliable reporting, somehow constitutes "abusing Wikipedia" for their advantage. Note that the page has been proposed for deletion once and sent to Articles for Deletion (a different, more elaborate process) twice, and all three times, the decision was to keep it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Please, don't delete the page. The information that this is a predatory publisher is important. It can save somebody's money and reputation. MaximNasurdinov (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Unrevertable vandalism

I came across this article while patrolling the recent changes page, and wanted to revert section blanking edits done by 88.14.71.76. However, I cannot revert the changes done by the user since the last usable revision has blacklisted links on it. Since, to my knowledge, there is no tool to identify which of the sites are blacklisted, I cannot properly revert the article using Twiggle. I need help with this one. Chlod (say hi) 13:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The blacklisted site was scholarlyoa.com (apparently added to the blacklist this month, if I read the log correctly). The software reports this when trying to save the pre-section-blanking version manually. For the time being, I have removed the links to scholarlyoa.com so the old version could be restored. They appear mostly redundant and probably date to a time when fewer science-news organizations had covered this organization. XOR'easter (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Website link

It's interesting to note that if you click on the link to their site from Wikipedia, you get a 404 error page, but if you type in the URL, the site actually loads. Not sure if this can be remedied or not. Louisiana22 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The "www" part of the URL causes a 404 error, because in addition to being scam artists, apparently they are terrible at server management. I tried fixing it just now, but the edit won't save because the URL is blacklisted. And the infobox gets the website it uses from Wikidata, for some reason. XOR'easter (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)