APCBEE Procedia 2

Here is an excellent example of scientific insanity: Influence of Fish Feed Containing Corn-Cob Was Fermented By Trichoderma Sp, Aspergillus Sp, Rhizopus Oligosporus To The Rate of Growth of Java Barb, published in Elsevier’s journal APCBEE Procedia 2 (2012). DOI

The only other article I could find by the authors Rita Rostika and Ratu Safitri is a very similar paper presented at International Seminar Biotechnology in 2011.

So, what is bad about this paper? The main problem is the language, which is so bad that any responsible editor should have declined the paper just based on the poor English. But the editor apparently didn’t. The reviewers (if there were any) apparently didn’t recommend that the paper should be rejected either. I will just point to the paragraph “Research design”, which in its entirety reads:

Research Design applied use Completely Randomized Design, 6 treatments and 3 times replication, and the treatment are : Difference between treatment for every test parameter there seen through F test at trust level 95%. Continuation test there used if F test gives real different result by using doubled distance test Duncan.
The conclusion is examplary short, but I’m not sure I understand it anyway.

Fish feed containing corncob fermented about 5 %, gave the highest growth rate of java barb which are 2.01 %.

The acknowledgement makes me a bit worried. Does it imply that only one of the authors wrote the article?

I would like to thanks to Professor Soeharsono (RIP) and Dr.Sutandar Zainal (RIP) as my promotors

ScienceInsanity thinks this kind of science should not be promoted.

Tagged , , ,

2 thoughts on “APCBEE Procedia 2

  1. Robin Hood says:

    There is ultimately only ONE entity responsible for having let this garbage pass through as being academic: Elsevier and its parent company Reed-Elsevier. Why is nobody holding Elsevier responsible for poor editrial work while they make profits peddling this pseudo-science? If the share-holders of this company know that they are backing stocks on trashy science, maybe the company might re-think its globalistic corporate policies (at any cost).

  2. Thanks for your comment, Robin Hood. Indeed, Elsevier has a large responsibility when it comes to the quality of scientific literature. Given their 36% profit margin, and the call for a boycott of Elsevier, they really should have higher standards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: