Landing : Athabascau University

This was actually accepted for an IEEE conference and then published

I invite you to draw your own conclusions about this paywalled paper and the amount of quality control and editorial input that goes into IEEE publications nowadays. Here's the abstract, which is one of the more coherent passages in the paper:

Abstract—The momentum contemplate evaluates the relationship among online social recreations and the e-learning utilization by look at the impact of social, subjective and teaching nearness on e-learning use between female understudies by method for playing on the web social diversions. This study utilizes an exploratory research plan, comfort test procedure. The outcomes propose that all scales are basically related with E- learning use. It is found that E-learning uses is emphatically tremendous and has a direct related with social nearness. The relationship between E-learning use and psychological nearness has a decidedly strong enormous connection; in like manner, the relationship between E-learning use and teaching nearness has an emphatically strong colossal connection. The disclosures inferred that the characteristic of online social amusements; both intellectual and teaching nearness impact E-learning utilization.

There's not enough research about female understudies. I'm glad that someone is filling that gap. It's well worth what otherwise appear to be the subscription fees IEEE is charging (US$33 in case you were wondering) . 


  • It's from Malaysia. I wonder if it could be a direct translation gone wrong? I see that it's submitted through this computer gaming conference in Jakarta, which is associated with 'IEEE Indonesian Section', whose submission criteria says that "Non-presented papers will be pulled from submission to IEEE Xplore." These papers must slip through the cracks. I wouldn't be surprised if the conference paper peer reviewers didn't review the non-presented papers and forwarded them directly to IEEE Xplore (managed in the USA), expecting them to review them (or not really caring, since it's not being presented in their conference).

    Even [formerly] trusted big publishers like Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage have accepted papers with no peer review (at least, they did a few years ago). I wrote about John Bohannon's experiment to get publishers to accept his purposefully and glaringly flawed paper in Science (04 Oct 2013, Vol. 342, Issue 6154, pp. 60-65, DOI 10.1126/science.342.6154.60): Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

    Vigilence, that is the price we have to pay for the proliferation of scientific resources and industry. (Yep, I'm quoting The Drumhead... again.) Informed skepticism is a skill that does not appear to be keeping pace with technology.

    Tyler Lucas October 7, 2017 - 2:21am

These comments are moderated. Your comment will not be visible unless accepted by the content owner.

Only simple HTML formatting is allowed and any hyperlinks will be stripped away. If you need to include a URL then please simply type it so that users can copy and paste it if needed.