Discover the world's scientific knowledge

International Journal of English Learning and Applied Linguistics (IJELAL), E-ISSN 2775-4359, is a peer-reviewed and open-access academic journal publishes biannually in December and June by the Department of English Education, Universitas Darussalam Gontor, Ponorogo, Indonesia.

Focus and Scope

The journal promotes discussion on English language Education (both learning and teaching), English linguistics, and English literature, including:

1. Methodology of English teaching for non-native speakers;

2. Teaching English as Foreign Language;

3. Teaching for English Skills and Competences;

4. Strategies for teaching and learning English;

5. Models of English teaching for the Pesantrens' Students;

6. English Linguistics;

7. English Literature;

8. Applied Linguistics on English Education;

9. The Technology of English Education;

10. English Translation

Link Call for Editorial dan Reviewer: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUKwB7oAQ_oK_gX371z96v_WoLKd7-OfkZG_Zz-0E49ri8bA/viewform?usp=sf_link

Contact: Zeny Luthvia 0895367365331 (WA only)

Available: (next issue)

June 2024 (5 slot)

💸 Free APC

Best Regards,

Dear Colleagues, I have this pleasure to be the handling editor for two special issues of the Review of Oral Health and Dental Management.

Oral Health and Dental Management (2017-18) 2247-2452 16 years of proven research archive in Dentistry.

"Dentistry in the globalizing world"

and "Dental ergonomics".Please feel invited to submit your valuable works to:

Mode of Submission: Articles can be submitted both either to editor or journal office.

1. Email Submission: Mention Special issue title in Subject line of submission a. Editor’s email: lydiakatrova@gmail.com

b. Journal office: editor@oralhealth.ro

or, oralhealthdental@dentaljournals.org

2. Online Submission through Editorial Manager after registration Submission Timeline: Open Publishing Timeline: December 2017-March 2018

Journal Office Contact: Sharma RK and Sophie Kate, Managing Editors, Oral Health and Dental Management

We invite academics and researchers in the field of Biology Education as a team of editors or reviewers in the journal that we manage, namely the “Assimilation: Indonesian Journal of Biology Education” ISSN: 2621-7260 (http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/asimilasi).

AIJBE is a biannual (published in March and September), peer-reviewed, open access journal, published by Department of Biology Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (http://www.upi.edu/) collaborates with Perkumpulan Pendidik IPA Indonesia (PPII) (https://ppii.or.id/).

Currently, AIJBE has issued a total of 2 volumes since 2018 and published scientific paper on the results of the research in some fields of biology education includes: learning strategy, learning media, assessment, teaching materials, curriculum, and teacher professional development.

Here are the requirements: (1) have qualifications in the field of Biology education, and (2) actively conducting scientific publications, evidenced by having Scopus ID.

The editorial board of the AIJBE would like to express its gratitude for your contribution to our journal. Please confirm below whether you are willing to become part of our team by fill out this form: https://forms.gle/bQ1AxjNGw72676PTA

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards,

Editor of AIJBE

Departement of Biology Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Telephone: (+6222) 2001937

E-mail: aijbe@upi.edu

Dear colleagues, You are invited to submit your manuscript to our special issue titled "#Tokenization: Transforming Conventional Markets and Disrupting Traditional Finance" in RIBAF (Research in International Business and Finance). ➡ IF 6.5, ➡ SSCI Q1, ➡ ABS 2, ➡ ABDC, ➡ 9/111 Ranking in Business and Finance category Guest Editors- Imran Yousaf and John W. Goodell ➡ Important Dates- Open for submissions: July 30, 2023 Last date to submit: December 31, 2023 ➡ Suggested topics for contributions include, but are not limited to, the following: - Valuation models for various classes of tokens - Role of tokens in promoting financial inclusion - Regulatory uncertainty and tokens market - Impact of macroeconomic indicators on tokens market - Detection and prevention of wash trading in tokens to reduce market manipulation - The risk-returns of single vs multiple blockchain-based tokens - The risk-returns of centralized vs. decentralized tokens - Level of financial statement’s information disclosure and tokens performance - Impact of tokenization on traditional banking services and business models - New tokens-based business models - Spillovers between tokens and financial markets - Identification of potential safe havens within the token's market - Forecasting for tokens prices - Efficiency of different types of tokens - Investor’s sentiments and the tokens market - Impact of celebrity’s endorsement on tokens - Cybersecurity attacks, scams, and the tokens volatility - Tokens prices and the strategic financial decisions - Difference between the performance of tokens and non-tokens-based firms - Tokens activity and mining companies’ stocks performance - Blockchain fee and its impact on tokens returns and volatility - Comparison of governance models of various tokens - Interrelationship between returns, volatility, and volume of the different classes of tokens - Gender gap in token market - Impact of geopolitical risk on token returns and market activity ➡ Details are available in the following link: https://lnkd.in/eszguCEx

I want to share a reflexion from the team Publons Academy about some tips to be a good reviewer. Are you in agree with these tips?

(https://publons.com/blog/6-tips-to-writing-a-great-manuscript-review/?utm_source=PublonsUsers&utm_campaign=df953a67a2-Mixed_reviews_24.01.2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d203ec3f11-df953a67a2-137729265)

Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Publons Academy supervisor

03 April 2018 on Peer Review, Peer review tips, Manuscript review, Publons Academy, Paul Wong

Peer review getting you down? Have you been asked to review and don't know where to start? Or have you tentatively submitted a few reviews and never been quite sure if you're doing it "right"?

📷

That's okay: there are tips you can learn to make the process easier and more robust--for you, the authors, and the editor.

Last month we shared five peer review tips and the story behind them from a Publons Academy graduate, Edmond Sanganyado. This month, our reviewing tips come from Publons Academy supervisor, Dr. Paul Wong.

Paul is the Professor Emeritus of Trent University and Adjunct Professor at Saybrook University. He is the Editor of the International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, and recently supported PhD candidate, Lilian Jans-Beken through the Publons Academy.

See what Paul believes makes an excellent reviewer, and if you're interested in improving your writing and learning the core competencies of peer review, check out our free and on-demand Publons Academy.

1. Have the Necessary Expertise

Do not review manuscripts beyond your scope of competency. Journals are more likely to publish papers with serious errors or deficiencies if their manuscripts have not gone through rigorous review by reviewers with the necessary expertise. Such problems may even occur in American Psychologist, the flagship of the American Psychological Association. Here are two cases: one involving the critical positivity ratio (Brown, Sokal, & Friedman, 2013, 2014) and another related to the existential issue of meaning in life (Brown & Wong, 2015). How these critical reviews ever got published are a story worth telling, because they could have been buried without vigorous protest against review bias.

2. Show Some Respect

Reviewers should show some respect by at least reading over each manuscript. Some manuscripts represent the cultivation of several years of research and deserve a couple of hours of reviewers’ time. I have personally seen reviewers rejecting manuscripts simply by reading the first paragraph. One of my own papers, the Death Attitude Profile (Gesser, Wong, & Reker, 1987-1988) was rejected because “there are already too many instruments measuring death anxiety,” even though this was the first paper providing a comprehensive measure of three kinds of death acceptance. Clearly, neither the reviewer nor the editor had taken time to read my paper. That is why I urge all my mentees to summarize what each manuscript is all about, thus indicating that they have read and understood the content of the manuscript.

3. Be Fair to All Manuscripts

It is difficult to be fair in your treatment of all manuscripts, because we all have our likes and dislikes, and no one is above biases. In order to guard against any review bias, one should openly acknowledge and suspend one’s bias for or against certain research at the beginning of a review. Such “bracketing” practice should improve objectivity in judgment. In this regard, one should also refrain from reviewing a manuscript, if there is a clear conflict of interest which may jeopardize one’s critical judgment, such as being a collaborator in some prior research.

Secondly, one should apply the same criterion to evaluate all papers for the higher purpose of safeguarding the integrity of science. One should especially guard against “halo effects;” one should not let the reputation of the author or the prestige of the author’s affiliation dull one’s ability for critical thinking and vigorous assessment.

📷 Photo courtesy of Dr. Paul Wong (above).

4. Be Constructive

It is very difficult to be constructive, especially when the editor instructs reviewers to be very strict because the journal has a very high rejection rate, sometimes as high as 80%. Under such circumstances, reviewers automatically focus on “fault finding” in order to support a recommendation of “rejection.” Such negativity bias is not a healthy practice, because it tends to favor the established elite researchers and discriminate against beginners who do not have a track record in publications. I propose that a reviewer should do the honest job of taking a constructive approach to review and let the editor tackle the problem of maintaining a high rejection rate.

Being constructive means that one looks for both the strengths and weaknesses of each manuscript. Even in the case of recommending rejection because of fatal flaws, provide logical and empirical justification for the criticism so that the authors can improve their research. From this perspective, it takes much less time to accept a manuscript than to reject one, as illustrated in this review, “How to Measure Existential Meaning” (Wong, 2017).

5. Be Inclusive and Balanced

Most authors suffer from the bias of “tribalism.” This practice is revealed in several ways. The most common form of tribalism is to ignore the findings or theories that may question their pet views. The second common practice is that within any domain of research, they only cite the work of their circle of associates or friends, and ignore “outsiders,” even when the most cited work comes from the latter.

Such intentional citation amnesia is neither scholarly nor ethical, because it ignores important publications that are germane to the topic under investigation. A knowledgeable reviewer should be able to call out such omissions, so that the manuscript can become more inclusive and balanced in its literature review and discussion.

6. Do Not be Afraid of Reprisal

Many reviewers, especially young researchers, do not want to offend “big names” because of fear of reprisal. A renowned psychologist once said to me, “I will make sure that this guy will never have another publication,” after bitterly complaining about a paper critical of his theory. I myself have suffered the consequence of daring to write a critical review of a book authored by a prominent psychologist. Over the years, I have witnessed editors who refused to publish any paper critical of an influential theory or author.

The blind review system provides some cover to a reviewer’s anonymity, but not the editor’s identity. In order to protect the integrity of the peer review, both editors and reviewers need to have the courage to do the right thing for the sake of justice and science, even if it involves the possibility of reprisal.

Conclusion

Ideally, a good reviewer serves two functions. Firstly, one serves the professional function of screening out what is not up to standard and improving what is acceptable. Secondly, one serves the humanistic function of contributing to fairness or justice in the distribution of research funding and publication space.

Being an established author does not automatically make one a good editor or peer reviewer; training is needed to develop competent and objective reviewers. I am so pleased the Publons Academy has taken up the challenge to train master reviewers.

Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801-813. doi:10.1037/a0032850

Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2014). Positive psychology and romantic scientism. American Psychologist, 69(6), 636-637. doi:10.1037/a0037390

Brown, N. J. L., & Wong, P. T. P. (2015). Questionable measures are pretty meaningless. American Psychologist, 70(6), 571-573. doi:10.1037/a0039308

Gesser, G., Wong, P. T. P., & Reker, G. T. (1987-88). Death attitudes across the life span. The development and validation of the Death Attitude Profile (DAP). Omega, 2, 113-128.

Wong, P. T. P. (2017). How to measure existential meaning. Paul T. P. Wong. Retrieved from http://www.drpaulwong.com/how-to-measure-existential-meaning/

Wong, P. T. P. (2017). How to write a good manuscript review. Dr. Paul T. P. Wong. Retrieved from http://www.drpaulwong.com/how-to-write-a-good-manuscript-review

Publons allows you to record, verify, and showcase your peer review contributions in a format you can include in job and funding applications (without breaking reviewer anonymity).

Register now to start building your verified peer review record.

I invite you to participate in the International Competition of Scientific Work to publish your works in Russian or English in the International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology". http://www.isjaee.com/jour/announcement/view/22

The Editorial Board of the International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology, ISJAEE invites you to participate in the International Competition of Scientific Works (ICSW – “HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2017”) on alternative energy and ecology under the theme of “Hydrogen Energy”.

All works selected by the Jury will be published in the International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology, ISJAEE (Chemical Abstracts, EBSCO, Russian Science Citation Index and other global databases and citation indices) in Russian and English in 12 issues of the journal and republished in English in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, IJHE (Scopus and Web of Science).

Thirty best papers and reviews of the authors from twenty countries of the world will be published within the Competition.

Deadline:

-       An application for the Competition should be submitted from March 20, 2017 till  June 30, 2017;

-       The papers should be submitted from March 25, 2015 till September 1, 2017;

-       The papers will be reviewed and published from April 15, 2017 till November 15, 2017.

Summing up the Competition and Winners awarding will take place on December 12, 2017.

The participation in the Competition is open to:

1)    All ISJAEE subscribers;

2)    All ISJAEE reviewers;

3)    All members of the Scientific Council of the ISJAEE Editorial Board;

4)    Members of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy and members of the International Association for Alternative Energy and Ecology;

5)    The authors published in 2015 – 2017.

One paper should be submitted by each participant only.

All authors will be granted a Certificate of Participation issued by the Organizing Committee and International Scientific Jury of the Competition.

The authors of three best works will be awarded with Gold, Silver and Bronze Cups.

The Winner of the Competition awarded with the World Gold Cup will receive a gift subscription to ISJAEE for 2018.

Five best authors will be awarded with international scientific awards of the Editorial Board.

A scientific paper should be 3-7 pages in length (A4, 12pt, 1.5 line spacing) and include 5 mandatory illustrations.   

A scientific review should be 9-12 pages in length (A4, 12pt, 1.5 line spacing) and include 7 mandatory illustrations.

The Sponsorship Package of the International Competition of Scientific Works includes the Gold Sponsorship Package ($5,000), Silver Sponsorship Package ($2,000) and Bronze Sponsorship Package ($1,500).

The Sponsors’ Logos will appear on covers of ISJAEE issues with papers published within the Competition.

The Chair of the ICSW – “HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2017” Organizing Committee

 Alexander L. Gusev (Sarov, Russia)

 t.work (STC “TATA”) +7-83130-63107

fax: +7-83130-90708

t.mob. +79047884477

e-mail: gusev@hydrogen.ru

Pectin, the natural polymeric carbohydrate substance is chemically a polygalacturonic acid and is partially esterified with methanol and depending on the degree of esterification is broadly termed as HMP (high methoxyl pectin) and LMP (low methoxyl pectin).

Basically they are used as gelling agents for fruit based preserves such as jam, jelly and marmalade. HMP for high sugar products and LMP for low sugar dietetic applications and without sugar (with high intensity/low calorie or zero calorie sweeteners in the presence of calcium ions) for diabetic population.

They are also used as stabilizing and thickening agents for variety of fruit/vegetables and dairy products.

The Pharmaceutical and Cosmetics industries also find significant application for pectin other than Food industry.

Worldwide citrus peels, apple pomace, sugar beet pomace and sunflower heads are used as raw materials (based on their availability) though citrus peels gives best quality pectin both in terms of yield and gel strength.

Further as far as peels of mango, papaya and banana are concerned they are not probably used as pectic raw materials (due to uncertain and insufficient supply for industrial application) on production scale though experimental data from laboratory scale experiments are already available from various laboratories of different countries.

I would like to know;

(1) if any other pectic raw material is used anywhere else for pectin production on commercial scale(may be in a smaller production units).

Let us see the main players as far as major pectin producers, worldwide is concerned.

Ref.: Business Wire (A Birkshire Hathway Company) July 08 2019 report.

a) CP Kelco : ‘GENU Pectin’ (This manufacturer is the world’s largest pectin manufacturer accounting for nearly a third of the total global pectin production. The company was formed in 2000 by the combination of Copenhagen Pectin (CPFactory)/Food Gums Division of Hercules Inc. and Kelco Biopolymers of Monsanto Company).

b) DuPont

(DuPont Danisco: ‘Grindsted’ pectin).

c) Cargill (‘Cargill Pectin’ Brazil)

d) Herbstrieth & Fox (75 year old, (Pectin- Fabrik GmbH of 1934) German Family Business now running in it’s 4th generation.

e) Naturex Givaudan (‘Naturex’) Naturex entered pectin business after the acquisition of PECTOWIN established in 1963, a Polish company (Agencja Rozwoju Przemysiu S. A.–ARP) in December 2011).

As per the latest report Givaudan has completed the acquisition and delisting of Naturex. (19th September 2018).

f) Yantai Andre Pectin : ‘A1pectner’ (Pectin manufacturer of Andre Group from China).

(Royal DSM Heerlen Netherlands completes increase shareholding in Andre Pectin to 75%).

Ref.: http://www.dsm.com news-archive.

(2)The second sub-question is related in order to get further information on various pectin manufacturers world over other than which are mentioned as above.

I suppose some of the RG members would be able to throw light on this in the context of their own country.

For example in India there are couple of small pectin manufacturing units (Krishna Pectins Pvt. Ltd Dapore, Maharashtra, Healthy Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. Mohai, Punjab, Southern Citrus Products, Gudur, Andhra Pradesh etc.to name a few) but there is major import still taking place over the last several decades to meet the constantly increasing demand.

The current price of standardized commercial pectin (150 degree USA SAG grade) in the International market is approximately Rs.1000/- per kg (about 10 € per kg).

I have a data since 1982, when I started my doctoral research to understand more about pectin (in terms of its chemistry, technology, production processes, applications and economics and related aspects).

My impression about the price of this important hydrocolloid gum is this, that prices are quite stable over last four decades. Because in 1980 the wholesale price in international market was about 4 € per kg and the current price of 10 € is very much expected considering the inflation, increase in production cost etc. and one can very well say that there is hardly any price hike influenced by demand/supply ratio though, the demand is constantly increasing.

So the third sub-question is:

(3) What is the impression of RG members with respect to above query especially giving due consideration to local market scenario of their own country?

Regards,

Call for Chapters

Important Dates: Proposal Submission Deadline: June 7, 2024 | Notification of Acceptance: June 25, 2024 | Full Chapters Due Date: July 30, 2024 | Reviews to Authors: August 30, 2024 | Final Chapters Due: October 30, 2024

https://www.igi-global.com/publish/call-for-papers/call-details/7366

Editors

The American College of Greece, Greece

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7281-5458

Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55830169000

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oA2FOOAAAAAJ&hl=el

Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9361-2345

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.ro/citations?user=NJ62Yw4AAAAJ&hl=en

Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55428880100

Introduction to the Theme:

"Academic Accreditation and Evaluation in Higher Education: Best Practices, Experiences and Quality Assurance" is a comprehensive publication that delves into the crucial aspects of academic accreditation and evaluation in the context of higher education. This book aims to provide a thorough exploration of the best practices and experiences in the field, offering insights into quality assurance mechanisms that drive continuous improvement within educational institutions.

Objectives of the Book:

This publication holds the potential to significantly impact the research community by serving as a seminal resource for scholars, educators, administrators, and policymakers engaged in the discourse around higher education accreditation and evaluation. Through a collection of rigorous research, case studies, and expert analyses, the book will contribute to the academic community's understanding of the evolving landscape of accreditation standards, assessment methodologies, and their implications on educational quality.

Indicative Topics:

· Tracing the historical development and evolution of accreditation standards in higher education.

· Analyzing how accreditation criteria have adapted to societal changes and educational advancements.

· Comparative analysis of accreditation systems and practices in different countries.

· Exploring the challenges and benefits of harmonizing accreditation standards across international borders.

· Examining the alignment between institutional missions and accreditation requirements.

· Strategies for institutions to integrate accreditation processes seamlessly into their mission statements.

· Investigating the integration of accreditation with academic program assessment.

· Best practices for aligning program-level outcomes with accreditation standards.

· Exploring the role of various stakeholders (faculty, students, employers) in the accreditation process.

· Strategies for enhancing stakeholder engagement to ensure comprehensive evaluation.

a. Effective Self-Assessment Strategies:

· Best practices for institutions in conducting self-assessment for accreditation.

· Utilizing self-assessment as a proactive tool for continuous improvement.

· Showcasing innovative approaches to documenting and reporting accreditation evidence.

· Exploring the use of technology in streamlining documentation processes.

· Identifying challenges in the peer review process for accreditation.

· Strategies for addressing common issues and enhancing the effectiveness of peer reviews.

· Examining accreditation models for interdisciplinary programs.

· Best practices for ensuring accreditation standards are met across diverse academic disciplines.

· Strategies for assessing and improving student learning outcomes within the accreditation framework.

· Incorporating data-driven approaches to enhance the quality of education.

· Examining the interconnectedness of accreditation and broader quality assurance initiatives.

· Strategies for institutions to leverage accreditation for overall quality enhancement.

· Establishing quality benchmarks and criteria for assessing online educational programs.

· Addressing challenges specific to accrediting online and blended learning environments.

· The role of institutional research in supporting quality assurance efforts.

· Using data analytics for evidence-based decision-making in quality assurance.

· Exploring the use of benchmarking as a tool for institutional quality improvement.

· Comparing benchmarking practices across diverse higher education institutions.

· Strategies for assessing and ensuring the quality of faculty members.

· Best practices for faculty development programs aligned with accreditation standards.

· In-depth case studies highlighting institutions with successful accreditation experiences.

· Identifying common elements contributing to success and lessons learned.

· Addressing common challenges faced by institutions during the accreditation process.

· Strategies for overcoming obstacles and maintaining a positive accreditation trajectory.

· Examining the leadership's role in driving successful accreditation outcomes.

· Profiles of institutions where effective leadership played a crucial role in accreditation.

· Exploring the unique challenges and approaches to accreditation for various types of institutions (research universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc.).

· Comparative analysis of accreditation experiences across different institutional contexts.

· Strategies for integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion principles into the accreditation process.

· Case studies showcasing institutions that have successfully aligned accreditation with DEI goals.

· Exploring the role of technology, including AI and data analytics, in streamlining accreditation processes.

· Assessing the potential impact of emerging technologies on the future of accreditation.

· Examining how accreditation models can adapt to the growing emphasis on lifelong learning.

· Strategies for accrediting non-traditional education pathways and micro-credentials.

· Analyzing trends toward globalizing accreditation standards and processes.

· Exploring challenges and opportunities in harmonizing accreditation practices worldwide.

· Addressing how accreditation and quality assurance adapt to changes in educational delivery models.

· Strategies for ensuring quality in the face of evolving educational landscapes.

· Shifting the focus from compliance to continuous improvement in accreditation.

· Exploring innovative models that prioritize ongoing enhancement of educational quality.

Submission Guidelines:

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before July 7, 2024, a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words clearly explaining the mission and concerns of his or her proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by July 21, 2024 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines.Full chapters are expected to be submitted by July 30, 2024, and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at https://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication, Academic Accreditation and Evaluation in Higher Education: Practices, Experiences, and Quality Assurance. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-blind peer review editorial process.

All proposals should be submitted through the eEditorial Discovery® online submission manager.

Publisher

This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), an international academic publisher of the "Information Science Reference" (formerly Idea Group Reference), "Medical Information Science Reference," "Business Science Reference," and "Engineering Science Reference" imprints. IGI Global specializes in publishing reference books, scholarly journals, and electronic databases featuring academic research on a variety of innovative topic areas including, but not limited to, education, social science, medicine and healthcare, business and management, information science and technology, engineering, public administration, library and information science, media and communication studies, and environmental science. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.igi-global.com. This publication is anticipated to be released in 2025.

Contact Information:

Dr. Miltiadis D. Lytras

Email: mlytras@acg.edu

Dr. Andreea Claudia Serban

Email: andreea.serban@economie.ase.ro

Thomas Sowell said, "You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." Thus, I became at the end of my rope after my rights were lost, my reputation was tarnished, and my financial and social situation was weak when my ex-wife seized the opportunity to open two accounts at Wells Fargo Bank without my knowledge in 2012. Moreover, in collaboration with a bank employee, she forged my signature during my illness and heart transplant in July 2016. My ex-wife kept withdrawing large sums of money from those accounts. After discovering the two accounts in 2018, they were closed. As a result, this matter left a bad reputation in my financial situation and significantly harmed me. Due to this, I fell into significant problems, including being deprived of financial transactions with the bank and being refused any requests I submitted.

Moreover, funding sources stopped, and many of my projects stopped with them. My request to open an account for my publishing house was denied despite having all the necessary legal papers. Then, I submitted complaints to the bank to investigate the matter, primarily related to the crime of forging my signature. Still, the case has not been decided so far, and my complaint has not been answered nor investigated as if I were screaming in a desert where no one responded to my call or felt my suffering. The ugliest thing is the inhumane treatment that the bank employees at Wells Fargo used to deal with me. The bank took arbitrary measures against me and my commercial accounts and regularly dispersed vast sums of money to several institutions without my consent. The bank deliberately spent vast sums of money on my ex-wife, who withdrew my savings and money without my permission and knowledge, not to mention the mistreatment by the bank employees.

If you are interested in knowing more about my tragedy, please get in touch with me at (http://drfayad.com), and don't hesitate to contact me at (info.aitg@aeehitg.com) to get the extended stories with much evidence within this volume. The delay in doing the website caused a lot of losses because “Amazon Publishing Pro” did not HONOR THE CONTRACT SIGNED ON APRIL 14, 2023, and participating in the Collective Injustice.

The purpose of writing this press release is not to offend any person, institution, group, political party, government, or country in the world. Instead, the purpose is to report and tell what befell me of wrong lest my experience would be repeated with others. It is intended to keep the stability of the community and guarantee the protection of its members, whether native or expatriate. It is a cry from me so that it may reach the ears of the world. Perhaps someone will hear it and help me to restore my lost and stolen rights. I intend to mention the names of some people who have done me wrong. I am not against any person, institution, government, or political party, but I am against any corruption or transgression by some irresponsible individuals who do not fulfill the role assigned to them appropriately. This is only for your information.