Amazing and ridiculous Decision by Loon Ching Tang QREI (original) (raw)

Fausto Galetto LETTER to the EDITOR of Quality and Realibility Engeenering International June

2022

The goal of this letter is two-fold: 1) showing that the paper “N. Kumar, S. Chakraborti, Improved Phase I Control Charts for Monitoring Times Between Events, published by Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2011, found online, on March 2021” has wrong formulae for the Control Limits of the Control Charts, 2) raising some doubt about the fact that “only Peer Reviewed papers and Published in GOOD Journals” have the dignity to be considered “scientific”. We show the case with data exponentially distributed, taken from the paper: the decision based on Kumar & Chakraborti (K&C) method is wrong. One person suggested to the author to use the Minitab Software and use the “T Charts”, assuming that T Charts are the good method to deal with “rare events”. Minitab “T Charts”, as well, are wrong. We show that RIT(Reliability Integral Theory) solves scientifically the problems.

Comments on Questionable Papers Jointly Published by National Taiwan University, Tsinghua University and Taipei University

Journal of Sciences & Humanities, 2021

When a researcher creates a paper based on previous works, but conceals the "cited literature" without explicitly publishing the fact of the citation, it will interrupt the transmission of information and even hinder the spread and development of knowledge. If academic workers do not cite or explicitly express the implicated previous works, this is depriving readers of their information rights. This kind of misconduct is motivated to avoid allegations of academic fraud controversy. This article discloses the controversial works jointly published by National Taiwan University, Tsinghua University and Taipei University. The three works make use of the same sample for studying different issues, consequently they are suspected of serious academic misconduct. The involved author has two international papers be retracted due to academic misconduct, both with an SSCI impact coefficient greater than 2. Academic misconduct tends to be a habit and culture. The newly exposed cases in this article can test the academic integrity of domestic management academic journals.

2019 BEAM, "Journal Rejection Rates", Greene & Medina

Journals nowadays typically have an acceptance ratio for submitted technical reports at a rate less than 1 in 5 (20% acceptance for some journals, p=0.20). The purpose of this report is to determine how exactly the likelihood of success subsequently improves, with several sequential submissions, assuming random selection. More commonly for the very busy journals, the rate is less than 1 in 10 (p=0.10 "acceptance probability"). The likelihood of failure q=(1-p) will diminish according to a power law as (1-p) ^ N, where N is the number of sequential submissions. For journals that are not as busy, where the acceptance probability is higher, p=0.20, the statistics show that at least 3 submissions are required to achieve a 50% likelihood of success, and 10 submittals are required to achieve a 90% likelihood of success. In recent years, there seems a preponderance of completely new scientific and medical journal groups, not necessarily "predatory", with 10 or 20 different sub-specialities in each group. Beall (2016) discusses practical implications in terms of the so-called predatory journals.