Probably the easiest place to start would be the "journals" that accepted these fake papers in the first place. Why not start with the papers that were reviewed by these fake authors? BTW, am I the only one who thinks that there is an analogy between published journals and the bitcoin "blockchain" concept? Basically, bitcoin mining consists in "reviewing" the newest transactions ("papers" ?) for consistency with the previous blockchain. Except that the bitcoin blockchain "publishes" once every 10 minutes instead of once every month or quarter. At 02:14 AM 3/3/2014, Joerg Arndt wrote:
* Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> [Mar 03. 2014 07:50]:
Too bad that Springer won't remove the much large number of gibberish papers in Springer "journals" that (more embarrassingly) weren't computer-generated -- except insofar as they excelled at pushing the limits of TeX.
Pointers, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
[...]