Profile cover photo
Profile photo
SCIENCEDOMAIN International
1 follower -
HIGH IMPACT | TOP INNOVATION | THIRST FOR EXCELLENCE
HIGH IMPACT | TOP INNOVATION | THIRST FOR EXCELLENCE

1 follower
About
Posts

Post has attachment
White paper regarding fight against Predatory Publication practices: published by Sciencedomain International

Some open-access publishers publish papers without peer review to make easy money. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, provided publication charge is paid. These publishers even advertise in their website and “calls for paper” that they will publish the paper within 1-4 days of submission. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such predatory journals. But at the later stage, his methodology to identify predatory journals was questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall's evaluation was biased and erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: http://bit.ly/wikipedia-Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

‘Sciencedomain International’ (SDI) fights against predatory publication practices for many years. ‘Sciencedomain International’ is also a victim of the predatory publication model. Many times ‘Sciencedomain International’ was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as Sciencedomain also follows open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image of ‘Sciencedomain International’ in many ways.

Therefore Sciencedomain International took some proactive steps to fight against the predatory publication problem starting from 2011. Some distinguished operating principles of ‘Sciencedomain International’ are discussed below and the backgrounds of these steps are also discussed.

Problem 1: Predatory publishers don’t do peer review.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

1.1 OPEN Peer review:
‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don't do peer review to publish any paper. As ‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing (i.e. absence of peer-review and quality control) cannot be applied against ‘Sciencedomain International’. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don't follow the predatory publication model.
Some examples:
a. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
b. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
c. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.2 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal
Now it is obvious that all publishers will highlight its brighter sides. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article. Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Springer, BMC, MDPI, Hindawi, etc.

Problem 2: Predatory publishers don’t pay any attention to complaints after publication
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

2.1 POST-publication peer review:
The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system. SDI journal Websites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote "Post-publication peer review". Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review. As a result of this "Post-publication peer review", if authors agree and/or journal Editors agree (and/or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and Retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).
2.2 Established Retraction Policy:
No journal in the world has a hundred percent perfect peer review policy. It is not expected from the publisher that it should work like fraud detection agency or fake paper detection agency. No publisher has that capacity or enough resource for such activities. An academic publisher is expected to arrange honest peer review, editorial screening, editing, formatting, publication, DOI registration, digital preservation of papers, indexing of published papers, etc. An academic publisher depends on the integrity of the author for the submitted paper and expertise of reviewers and editors during the peer review process. At any stage, an academic publisher should never influence the publication decision by over-ruling the academic independence of the reviewers and editors. Therefore, a scholarly publisher is never expected to publish only a hundred percent perfect papers, as it depends on the author-reviewer-editor system. But an academic publisher is always expected to work promptly whenever a fraud/wrongdoing is reported. If an academic publisher sits idle when an irreparable wrongdoing is reported then the publisher is just supporting the wrongdoing of the author. Such careless idle steps of the publisher rather encourage other dishonest authors to harbour their papers with that publisher. Predatory publishers often sit idly by publishing fake papers and invite other dishonest authors to publish their papers by providing a safe shelter in exchange for publication charges. It is expected that a true academic publisher should officially retract wrong papers/fake papers immediately whenever reported. Retraction is a negative point for any publisher, but a true academic publisher should never be afraid to retract such papers with official retraction notice. Sciencedomain International has a very strong and official correction/retraction policy (see here: http://bit.ly/retraction-policy-sdi). Sciencedomain International is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, fake paper, etc. Whenever such a serious problem is reported, Sciencedomain International takes immediate action and officially retract the paper.

Problem 3: Predatory publishers use the name of the reputed scientists without consent and sometimes they don’t do quality control during the recruitment of editors.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

3.1 Transparent Editorial Board:
All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved by SDI. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world, but we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.2 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals
Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation. We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors. Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

Problem 4: Predatory publishers claim false indexing status, show false impact factor, highlight Thomson Reuters Researcher ID as proof of indexing in ISI, etc.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

4.1 Transparent Indexing information: A dedicated indexing team of Sciencedomain International is working to include all of our journals in reputed indexing services or journal evaluation services or catalogue or reference citations, etc. Sciencedomain International also advises that authors should cross-check the authenticity of claims of indexing before submitting their manuscripts to any publisher (including SDI). SDI strongly encourages authors to take 'informed decision' before submission of any manuscript. In order to help the authors to take 'informed decision', SDI is providing web-links/proofs beside most of the claims of indexing or journal evaluation services. In addition, authors should visit the official site of the indexing organization or journal evaluation services before submitting any manuscript. We have never applied to have a false impact factor (like global impact factor, etc) for our journals and we never display false impact factor of journals to cheat the authors. We never advertised Thomson Reuters Research ID (https://clarivate.com/products/researcherid/) as proof of our ISI indexing. We hope the scholarly community will appreciate our efforts to maintain integrity and transparency. Please see our steps here: http://bit.ly/indexing-sdi1

Problem 5: Predatory publishers don’t provide clear information regarding publication charges. They never provide information related to publication charge before or just after submission. They start demanding money after the publication.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

5.1 Transparent Publication Charge: At Sciencedomain International, we clearly and publicly provide all information regarding publication charge (http://bit.ly/publication-charge-sdi). Publication charge related all clear information is prior provided to all authors.

Problem 6: Predatory publishers don’t provide clear information regarding the place of Head-Quarters of the publisher and actual place of operation. They also don’t reveal the name of the publisher.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

6.1 Publicly available Headquarters address: Sciencedomain International clearly displays information regarding registered address and Head-Quarters in the contact page. Sciencedomain International also provides the name of the publisher and contact details. Please see here: http://bit.ly/contact-sdi


Problem 7: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to the satisfaction of authors. Actually, they harass the authors in different stages of publication. They are also not transparent regarding customer satisfaction.
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

7.1 Direct posting of author feedback: At Sciencedomain International, we believe that quality peer review should attract appreciation from all authors, irrespective of the nature of the review decision (i.e. Acceptance or Rejection). Testimonials of the authors are presented publicly on our website. From 06-04-2016, Sciencedomain has provided direct comment posting feature in the website. Authors, who want to share their experience directly, can use this feature. We welcome any kind of feedback (positive or negative). Apart from this direct experience sharing facility, authors can also share their experience via email, which will be posted by our IT staffs. We are proud to say that we take the satisfaction of authors very seriously. This may be the reason of our lowest possible “Credit Card Charge reversal and Dispute” cases against us (in some calendar year we have zero such cases). Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1


Problem 8: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to the satisfaction of reviewers and never maintain transparency (if they do peer review)
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

8.1 Transparent information and recognition of reviewers: We follow the best possible industry standard for reviewer satisfaction. In all published papers, we publish the name of the reviewers and also publicly publish the review reports along with published papers. We also publicly publish the list of reviewers yearly once. Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among top 1000 journals and 38 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ was placed among top 3000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank (website accessed on 09-07-2018).
Problem 9: Predatory publishers are less attentive regarding plagiarism checking, formatting, etc
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

9.1 Established Plagiarism Policy: SCIENCEDOMAIN international strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. SCIENCEDOMAIN international aims to publish original high-quality research work. Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after an internal investigation and subsequently the paper will be retracted. Plagiarism policy of this journal is mainly inspired by the plagiarism policy of The Nature. Please see here for more information: http://bit.ly/plagiarism-policy-sdi

Problem 10: Predatory publishers falsely claim attachment with famous academic institutions like the publication of research papers from reputed universities, etc
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

10.1 High Profile authors: High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like Harvard University, Columbia University, Cambridge University, University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Göttingen University, etc. We are thankful to authors for keeping faith in our transparent high standard peer review process, high editorial standard, etc. Sciencedomain publishes a list of authors, who have published at least one paper in any SDI journal. A hyperlink of the published paper has been provided with the name of the author(s) for verification. This list is partial. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles

Problem 11: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention for permanent digital archiving of published papers
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

11.1 Permanent digital preservation policy: Sciencedomain International is happy to announce that all our journals are now permanently archived in Journal Repository (JR). Journal Repository (JR) is among the fastest growing community-supported digital archives in the world. Please see here: http://bit.ly/digital-preservation-sdi

Problem 12: Predatory publishers don’t provide attention to follow “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing”, introduced by OASPA, COPE, DOAJ and WAME
Following Proactive Steps were taken by Sciencedomain International to solve this problem.

12.1 Self-compliance report publication: Excellent guidelines regarding ‘Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing’ have been established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association and the World Association of Medical Editors. We sincerely thank OASPA-DOAJ-COPE-WAME for this great effort. Sciencedomain International feels that we must follow these guidelines and should publicly publish a ‘self-compliance report’ for public and scholarly scrutiny. We’ll heartily welcome any valuable feedback to improve our journal. A comment section is available below the self-compliance report card. We’ll be happy to receive ‘peer-review report’ regarding our journal. Please see here for more details: http://bit.ly/compliance-report-oaspa
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Sciencedomain International fights against predatory publishers

Many open-access publishers publish low-quality research papers. They only want to make easy money, so they publish whatever articles they receive without peer review. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, if they receive the publication charge. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such ‘pay to publish’ journals, who publish anything without peer review. But at the later stage, his intention and methodology to identify predatory journals were questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall's evaluation was biased and highly erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

‘Sciencedomain International’ fights against predatory publication practices for many years. ‘Sciencedomain International’ is also a victim of predatory publication model and many times ‘Sciencedomain International’ was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as ‘Sciencedomain International’ also follow open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image and business of ‘Sciencedomain International’ in many ways.
Some distinguished operating principles of ‘Sciencedomain International’ are discussed below. These below mentioned points clearly prove the difference of ‘Sciencedomain International’ with predatory publishers.

1. OPEN Peer review:
‘Sciencedomain International’ International journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don't do peer review to publish any paper. As ‘Sciencedomain International’ journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing can not be applied against ‘Sciencedomain International’. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don't follow the predatory publication model.
Some examples:
a. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
b. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
c. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.1 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal
Now it is obvious that all publisher will tell good about itself. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article. Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Hindawi, etc.

2. POST-publication peer review:
The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system. SDI journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote "Post-publication peer review". Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review. As a result of this "Post-publication peer review", if authors agree and or journal Editors agree (and or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).

3. Transparent Editorial Board:
All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world. But we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.1 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals
Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation. We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors. Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

4. Moderate Acceptance rate:
SDI journals have average 51-63%. Even some authors praised openly about our peer review system, though their paper was rejected. Please see here some proof: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1

5. Publons ranks 6 SDI journals among top 1000 journals of the world
Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from ‘Sciencedomain International’ International was placed among top 1000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

6. High profile authors
High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like Harvard University, Columbia University, Cambridge University, University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Göttingen University, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles


From the above discussion, it is imperative to say that ‘Sciencedomain International’ does not follow predatory publication practices.
Author Profiles
Author Profiles
sciencedomain.org
Add a comment...

Sciencedomain fights against predatory publication practices

Many open-access publishers publish low-quality research papers. They only want to make easy money, so they publish whatever articles they receive without peer review. Some publishers publish articles in their journals within one or two days after submission, if they receive the publication charge. Jeffrey Beall, the Denver-based former librarian, first coined the term “predatory publishing” in 2011, to identify such ‘pay to publish’ journals, who publish anything without peer review. But at the later stage, his intention and methodology to identify predatory journals were questioned. Many academicians proved that Beall's evaluation was biased and highly erroneous. Please see the related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall. But nobody can deny the contribution of Mr. Beall to identify the black side of open access scholarly publication.

Sciencedomain fights against predatory publication practices for many years. Sciencedomain is also a victim of predatory publication model and many times Sciencedomain was labelled with “predatory” stamp, as Sciencedomain also follow open access publication model. Confusion and mixing the name of Sciencedomain with low-quality predatory publishers harmed the brand image and business of Sciencedomain in many ways.
Some distinguished operating principles of Sciencedomain are discussed below. These below mentioned points clearly prove the difference of Sciencedomain with predatory publishers.

1. OPEN Peer review:
Sciencedomain International journals follow a transparent and robust OPEN peer review model. All peer review reports, comments of the editors and different versions of the manuscripts are also made publicly posted along with the published paper. This process eradicates any possibility of malicious interference by the publisher to publish papers only for money, by compromising academic quality. The main complaint against predatory publishers is that anybody can publish anything by paying hefty money. And predatory publishers compromise the peer review process or don't do peer review to publish any paper. As Sciencedomain journals follow transparent OPEN peer review model, so the main criteria of predatory publishing can not be applied against Sciencedomain international. Very politely we want to tell that our peer review system is not perfect. But we strongly want to say that we don't follow the predatory publication model.
Some examples:
a. http://bit.ly/open-review-2
b. http://bit.ly/open-review-3
c. http://bit.ly/open-review-4

1.1 World famous Science Journal article authenticated high peer review standard of SDI journal
Now it is obvious that all publisher will tell good about itself. But to establish the claim of a publisher, it must be authenticated by some third-party neutral agency. Please see that our claim of the high standard of peer review is authenticated by the world-famous Science journal article. Please see the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/science-report-111). It was reported that out of total 304 journals, only 20 journals rejected the fake article after substantial peer review. We are happy that our journal was among these few successful journals along with industry leaders like PLoS One, Hindawi, etc.

2. POST-publication peer review:
The pre-publication Peer review evaluation system is not perfect and many academicians proved loop-holes of the peer review system. We also never claimed that the peer review system is perfect. But we have tried to make it as transparent as possible. But still, we know that there will be errors. So we introduced also POST-publication peer review system. SDI journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promote "Post-publication peer review". Please see here: http://bit.ly/post-peer-review. As a result of this "Post-publication peer review", if authors agree and or journal Editors agree (and or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and retraction policy (http://bit.ly/retraction-policy).

3. Transparent Editorial Board:
All SDI journals have a transparent editorial board. Many times predatory journals post the name of editors without their consent. Sometimes predatory journals publish fictitious editors. All SDI journals publish complete academic affiliation of all editors. Additionally, SDI journals publish email ID, short biography and link of the institutional webpage of editors for complete transparency. All communications with the editors are also permanently digitally preserved. Along with the published paper, identity and comments of the academic editor are also published. Therefore, very politely we want to say that we may not have the strongest editors of the world. But we have a highly transparent and active editorial board to maintain the quality of the journal.

3.1 World famous Nature journal article confirmed the high standard of SDI editors and journals
Now it is necessary to provide the proof of the high standard of editors of SDI journals. We hereby provide the proof from an article of world-famous NATURE journal article. One of our journals was also targeted by the authors of this NATURE article as part of the sting operation. We are happy to inform that Nature (Impact Factor: 41.6) article confirmed high standard of SDI journal and its editors. Please, read the investigative report here (http://bit.ly/Nature-report-111).

4. Moderate Acceptance rate:
SDI journals have average 51-63%. Even some authors praised openly about our peer review system, though their paper was rejected. Please see here some proof: http://bit.ly/author-speaks1

5. Publons ranks 6 SDI journals among top 1000 journals of the world
Famous Publons (a part of Thomson Reuters Clarivate Analytics), also confirmed the high standard and transparency of peer review system of SDI journals. There are more than 40,000 academic journals worldwide. As per Publons website, 6 journals from Sciencedomain International was placed among top 1000 journals like Nature, Science, PlosOne, BMJ, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/publon-rank (website accessed on 09-07-2018).

6. High profile authors
High standard of SDI journals has attracted authors from world famous universities like Harvard University, Columbia University, Cambridge University, University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Göttingen University, etc. Please see here: http://bit.ly/author-profiles


From the above discussion, it is imperative to say that Sciencedomain does not follow predatory publication practices.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts


In the French “Nord-Pas-de-Calais” region, sediments suspended in runoff waters coming from rural watersheds play a major part in the turbidity of surface waters, silting up of streams, and silting of permanent structures such as canals and ports.

One of the main factors in processes limiting sediment transfers is the vegetation cover. Quantitative assessment and comparative analysis of the impacts of vegetation cover performed in various scales (fields, smaller watersheds, and larger watersheds) allow showing effects' analogy in these cases. As a result, it is possible to estimate and quantify, at little cost, the risks induced by erosion and runoff in the larger rural watersheds, and the need to change land use. Thereby, watersheds where the situation is more favorable can serve as a model.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts


Manure is a rich nutrient source in crop production. It contains essential nutrients needed by crop for growth and development. One of the challenges of manure nutrient contents determination is obtaining representative samples of manure for nutrient analysis. This is attributed to the differences in the manure handling method, type of storage structures, application method, and physical state of the manure and livestock management system. A representative manure sample is needed to provide an accurate reflection of the nutrient content. This paper examined the physical classifications of organic manure, highlighting the solid, liquid, and semi solid state of manure, when to sample organic manure for nutrient analysis in crop production especially during land application and also elucidate on sample preparations for nutrient analysis.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts


Bacillus spp have been widely adopted as one of the vital producers of the industrial enzymes including amylase, cellulase and xylanase. In fact, submerged fermentation (SmF) with the presence of excess water is the best suited technique for the culture of bacteria especially Bacillus that required high moisture content to grow. Pure carbon sources besides being expensive, are not economically viable for the production of enzymes. Therefore, inexpensive yet effective agricultural residues such as barley husk was used in this study.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the kinetic of cell growth and enzymes production of amylase, cellulase and xylanase by Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 using barley husk as the main carbon source under SmF.

Methodology: In the present study, the standard inoculum size of 1 × 108 cells of B. subtilis was inoculated into culture flask containing barley husk for the production of enzymes in SmF. Samples were collected every 12 h for analysis.

Results: In this study, B. subtilis possessed the maximum specific growth rate (µmax) of 0.55 h-1 at 48 h with the maximum cell productivity of 1.98 × 1010 cells/L/h was attained during the exponential growth phase. On the other hand, the highest enzyme activity by B. subtilis obtained in this study was identified to be amylase with its activity of 1.991 U/mL, followed by xylanase activity of 1.492 U/mL and lastly cellulase with the lowest activity of 0.304 U/mL. In addition, the specific enzymes activity and productivity were also elucidated to describe the kinetic study of enzymes production. The maximum specific xylanase activity of 6.81 U/mg, followed by specific amylase activity of 6.68 U/mg and the least specific cellulase activity of 0.73 U/mg were attained from B. subtilis. In fact, cellulase productivity of 18.23 U/mL/h was found to be relatively low compared to amylase with 119.48 U/mL/h and xylanase with 89.52 U/mL/h. Cellulase production was determined as growth associated process where its maximum production was attained at the end of the exponential growth phase. On the contrary, the production of amylase and xylanase were partially growth associated due to their maximal production observed after the exponential phase of cell growth.

Conclusion: In a nutshell, B. subtilis is anticipated to be potential bacteria for the optimisation of enzymes production for amylase, cellulase and xylanase using barley husk as the sole carbon source in SmF.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts


This study presents the analysis of rainfall and temperature across the climatic zones in Nigeria. Data from ten Global Circulation Models (GCM) regridded to a 1° x 1° spatial resolution was used in this study. Model evaluation was carried out for the models using ground observed data from Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET). Based on the comparison of the models with ground observed data, the ability of the models in simulating the seasonal pattern of precipitation and temperature over each climatic zone and the whole of Nigeria differ to different degrees. Of the four periods, June, July, August (JJA) showed the highest deviation. The seasonal variation of rainfall and temperature across the climatic zones revealed the influence of the Intertropical Discontinuity (ITD) in rainfall variation across each zone with dual rainfall peak over the Guinea. The rainfall distribution showed that Sahel recorded the lowest rainfall while guinea recorded the highest rainfall. Further analysis revealed that rainfall and temperature varied mostly in the sahel. The trend analysis of rainfall and temperature showed increasing trend in rainfall over the whole of Nigeria under RCP45 and RCP85. There was general increase in temperature for all RCPs across the zones and the whole of Nigeria. Further analysis revealed that sahel will experience more dry years in rainfall and more warm years across the zones for temperature. The changes in rainfall and temperature have implications in various sectors of the economy such as agriculture, water resources and health sector. It is well known that research and development complement each other. It is important that further research be carried out particularly in projecting the change in climate at regional scales. This will provide information about the expected change or variation in climate and hence help in the mitigation of the implications of the change in climate.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts

Objective: The study investigated the possibility of using blood groups as predictive indices for diseases associated with lipid metabolism.
Methods: Lipid profiles were examined in 100 apparently healthy male (40) and female (60) subjects of different ABO blood groups aged between 18-30 years from Imo State University. Of these, 20 were blood group A, 30 were B blood type, 4 were AB blood type, and 46 were blood group O. Lipid profile parameters were determined according to enzymatic assay using a commercial kit from Randox Laboratories, United Kingdom and calculation using Friedewald’s equation. Monoclonal ABO blood grouping reagent by CLAS Technology, United Kingdom was used to determine the blood group.
Results: Total Cholesterol (140.62 ± 21.66 mg/dl) and High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) (96.20 ± 40.32 mg/dl) were highest in blood group B. Blood group A had the highest level of Triglyceride (80.84 ± 18.60 mg/dl) and Very Low-Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) (15.21 ± 6.24 mg/dl). Blood group O showed TC level of 130.60 ±34.76 mg/dl with the highest level of LDL (70.74 ± 20.15 mg/dl) and the lowest level of HDL (51.68 ± 20.50 mg/dl) compared to non- O blood types (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: The study revealed that blood group O might have a higher propensity for dyslipidemia, suggesting an increased risk for disease associated with lipid metabolism.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts


Aim: To optimize lipase production by Bacillus megaterium in submerged fermentation

Study Design: Collection of palm oil press fibres and effluent from different palm oil mills located within Ibadan Municipality. Isolation of Bacillus megaterium by cultivation in medium, submerged fermentation of palm oil press fibres and effluent by B. megaterium to produce lipase. Alteration of the cultural conditions to optimize production

Place and Duration of Study: All work were done in the Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Ibadan, from January–December 2014

Methodology: Palm oil press fibres and effluent were collected from various palm oil mills and were used as the source of isolation of microorganism. The isolated species were identified by studying the morphological, biochemical, characteristics and 16SrNA gene sequencing. The selected species was screened for lipase production

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Abstracts

Aims: To assess CD4 counts, total and differential white cell counts in HIV positive patients on antiretroviral treatment (ART) and those not on antiretroviral treatments with varying durations of infection.

Study Design: Case-control study.

Place and Duration of Study: Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Nnewi, Nigeria from March to August 2013.

Methodology: We included 181 subjects; sixty HIV patients on ART with infection duration of <1 – 5, >5 – 8 and >8 – 17 years and ART duration of <1 – 5, >5 – 8 and >8 – 17 years; sixty HIV patients not on ART with an infection duration of <1 – 3, >3 – 6 and >6 – 11years; and sixty-one apparently healthy individuals control. CD4 counts, total and differential white cell counts as well as Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status were determined.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded