Ruma Bag

Ms. Ruma Bag is editor of the Book Publisher International.

Several opinions about her are collected at the site of bookpi.org ; Few of them are copypasted in the next section.

Opinions

Ruma Bag is mentioned at the collection of opinions about bookpi.org:

https://www.bookpi.org/testimonials/
Testimonials
We would be highly obliged to you, if you kindly share your publication experience (technical support, responsiveness, etc). Kindly don’t hesitate to write if your experience is negative. Your feedback (positive/negative) will be very important for the development of this organisation.
Please share your feedback here.. ..
Dr Dastagiri NAARM says:
September 25, 2020 at 9:13 am
I profusely thank Editor, Dr Mandal and Madam Ruma Bag for their technical expertise in editing and publishing my book. They are very prompt and highly cooperative. They deserve high compliments. I wish them and their organization in future endeavor. Reply
elena zakharova says:
September 24, 2020 at 9:45 pm
I am very grateful to Ms. Ruma Bag for attention and promptness in dealing, as well as the Editor Dr. Dharmesh Chandra Sharma for successful corrections in the construction of the text of our Chapter.
I would like to wish more attention when typing, because in the first edition there were a lot of blank spaces, merged words. But it seems to me that this has already been taken into account, because after that everything was very carefully corrected. Health and prosperity!
..

Place of Science in the Human Knowledge

Here is opinion by Dmitrii Kouznetsov. It is mainly copypasted from the special article https://mizugadro.mydns.jp/w/Place/Experience/33.pdf [0].
It is copypasted below.

Experience of publising with the Book Publisher International

by Dmitrii Kouznetsov, 2020.

ABSTRACT

By request from the Editor Ms. Ruma Bag, I describe my experience of publishing my chapter Place of Science in the Human Knowledge in book New Insights into Physical Science, v.6 .

1. Preface

2020.09.10, book New Insights into Physical Science, volume 6

with my chapter Place of Science in the Human Knowledge had been published by the Book Publisher International.

2020.09.30, Ms. Ruma Bag asked me to write my opinion about my interaction with the Editorial, describing my experience. Here I describe my experience.

In order to make my critics constructive, I formulate few suggestions. Also, I formulate questions to Ms. Ruma Bag that could hep her to describe her point of view on the same events.

2. History

Here, I describe the most some events that happen in 2020 with respect to book New Insights into Physical Science volume 6.

I mention only few, the most important messages, that caused the publication.

2020.03.18, Editors Rimi Jana and Ms. Ruma Bag invite me to participate in book New Insights into Physical Science with my chapter based on my previous publications. They promise:
1. Professional review, editing and plagiarism checking.
2. Professional cover-page design and typesetting.
3. Specialized English editing and proofreading
4. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) allotment.
and other advantages with publication at the Book Publisher International.

2020.03.26, I accept the invitation by Ms. Ruma Bag.
I prepared the chapter on the base of my previous publication TORI Axioms and the Application in Physics of year 2013 in Journal of Modern Physics , my publication in UFN and its English version . I had extended it with figures and the recent examples.

2020.06.06, my chapter is accepted for publication by the Editorial

2020.06.15, the receipt of the payment of the author fee had been acknowledged by the Editorial.

2020.06.16. Ms. Ruma Bag asked me to modify my chapter, following the Latex example she sent.

2020.06.18, the Editorial confirm, that they got the address, where to deliver the authors exemplars of the book.

2020.06.24, I sent to the Editorial the revised version with hope, that it will be forwarded to reviewers for critics.

No critics from the official reviewers had been received. I had found the Reviewer 1 by myself.

2020.07.01, I got from the Editorial the "Galley Proof", but it was not in the Latex format. My manuscript happened to be converted to DOCX format. The numeration and links had been destroyed there.

2020.07.01, I tried to correct the "Galley proof", taking into account the critics by the Reviewer 1,

That time, I had almost no experience with DOCX files. I did not realize, that there, by default, the hyperrefs are destroyed at the the copy pasting. In addition, The *.docx typesetting happen to be buggy and fragile: one "backspace" or "enter" key in the list of references destroys the numeration in the whole manuscript; at this destruction, no warning message appear.

I found no professional editing from the side of the Editorial. Even the broken links had not been detected by the Editorial.

2020 September, Ms. Ruma Bag and I tried to correct the numeration of references, using the DOCX format. Our iterates had converged slowly: New spaces and new "newline" characters suddenly appeared inside the URLs, making them invalid.

Then I converted he manuscript back into Latex, following the first template I got from Ms. Ruma Bag in June. I corrected the numeration of references. (Latex has system of numeration of references; this work is difficult to do with *.docx )

Also, I found few links, that become not available during the consideration and revision of my chapter. I had the reserve copies; I loaded them to my site and replaced the invalid URLs with links to these copies. (In such a way, several Russian sites are revealed to be unstable; the instability confirms qualification of those sites as non-scientific.)

Ms. Ruma Bag liked the resulting PDF, but she asked me to convert the latex document again into *.docx
I did this conversion.

After one more iterate (I indicated few more misprints), the final text had been published

I got from Ms. Ruma Bag the ``final PDF version of my chapter and the final PDF version of the book.

The URLs in the versions I got are not clickable; so, they are difficult to use.

I did not yet got the URL of the online publication of the book, nor that of my chapter.

They are mentioned at the site of the Editorial, but the content seems to be not available. Perhaps, there are some misprints in the code, that makes the links not clickable.

I did not yet get the author's exemplars of the book. Ms. Ruma Bag explains this in terms of COVID19.

Then, Ms. Ruma Bag asked me to write out my opinion about our collaboration; I answered, that I have not yet receive my published book (paper version).

2020.10.03, Ms. Ruma Bag indicates that the book is not sent to the authors, because there is no access to the printing division. I understand, the book is not yet printed. So, I looked for more misprints, and I have found three:
1. Error indicating the source of figure 4 (should be ref. [36] of the book)
2. Misspelled word "hystory",
4. Missed line that cites reference [63] of the book.

As the book is not yet printed, then, I thought, the Editorial still have opportunity to improve the content.

2020.10.08, Ms. Ruma Bag indicates that the book "was published", and cannot be improved anymore.

I reminded that I did not get the book (hardcopy version).

2020.10.09, Ms. Ruma Bag again sends me message with PDF file. There, the links are not yet clickable, as in the previous version.

I see, our communication already come to some periodic loop; I see no civilized way to get my paper print version of the book, nor to convince Ms. Ruma Bag to correct the site www.bookpi.org where the book is mentioned, but the names of chapters are not yet clickable.

For this reason, I think, I can conclude this partial report and formulate my suggestions.

3. Suggestions

On the base of my experience above, I have few suggestions, recommendations for the Editorial. I think, following them should significantly improve quality of publications by the Book Publisher International.

1. The template of the chapter for the book should be posted at the first page of site of the Book Publisher International.
Link to this template should appear at the beginning of the messages by the editors send to the potential authors, inviting them to prepare a chapter for the {\AB Book Publishing International}. Such a link is the most important part of the information for authors. Currently, this information seems to be just missed.

2. As soon as you get the first version of any manuscript submitted, you should send it to colleagues and ask, whether it satisfies criteria below:
s1. Applicability,
s2. Verifiability,
s3. Refutability,
s4. Self-consistency,
s5. Principle of correspondence, and
s6. Pluralism.
If it satisfies all the 6 criteria, you may ask:
t1: Are the results free of mistakes?
t2. Are there results interesting for colleagues?
t3. Are the results well described in the manuscript?
t4. How to describe them better?
Some reviewers afraid to criticize colleagues; so, you may consider to keep the name of the Reviewer(s) in secret from the Authors. Many editorials to this.

3. You send the reviewer(s) notes to the corresponding author, get his/her opinion and make your decision: should you accept or reject the Manuscript. Then, the result will be Science!

4. Questions

I would like your Editorial to promote namely Science.
You can see, I try to help you to act in this way.
From my side, I expect similar cooperation from you.

For me, it would be interesting to get also opinion by Ms. Ruma Bag,
Especially important would be to get her answers on the following questions.

1. Why the Editors begun to work with the manuscript instead of to send it to the Reviewers (as it is promised in the first message I got)?
Why I had to search Reviewer 1 by myself?

2. What happened with the original manuscript in Latex?
There were several errors there;
in particular, font "Arial" did not switch well in the first version.
(First, I did not guess, that it should be Arial.)
Why the command, that specifies the Arial font, had not been corrected by the Editorial?
Why Chapter had been converted from Latex to DOCX?

3. Why the URLs in the version you sent are not clickable?
With all desadvantages of the DOCX format, it still has option to make URLs klickable.
The clickable links help to colleagues, who read the online version.
Also the clickable links help the Author to check, that they are correct and still valid. This boosts the check of the manuscript for orders of magnitude; no need to convert the text to other format in order to check the references.
Why you do not use the clickable links?

4. What happens with the online publication
Why the chapters do not open with a click at the table of the content?
Could you, please correct this?

5. When do you expect the book to be printed and sent to authors?
Which sense it "is published", if even a misprint cannot be corrected?

6. Do you send the books you publish to some libraries?
How the authors can know, which libraries have their books?

5. Conclusion

I think, that the performance of the ``Book Publisher International can be improved. I show the ways. Here is the summary:

1. Link to the template of the article should appear at the main page of your site
and in the first paragraph of the first message, that invites authors to the collaboration.
It is most important information for authors.

2. The manuscripts submitted should be sent to reviewers.
The following questions should be answered about each manuscript:
2.1. What is area of applicability of the concepts suggested?
2.2. Which observations could be interpreted as confirmation of these concepts?
2.3. Which observations could be interpreted as refutation of these concepts?
2.4. Are the results self-consistent?
2.5. Do the results agree with commonly accepted concepts?
2.6. If there exist other results on the same topic? Do they agree or disagree with the concepts of the manuscript?

3. If the editor edits the manuscript, the editor should check, that, after his/her edition, the numeration is still correct, and the links are still clickable. If some link is not valid, it may be marked as "not available". Marking as "available" any already invalid link - it is not a good style of editing.

4. The book should be printed. Some exemplars of the paper version, books, should be sent to the authors.

5. The PDF version of the book should be available at the site of the Editorial – then, the reader may see it before to buy the paper version, "hardcopy".

I think, the hints above can significantly improve the quality of publications.

References

[0] https://mizugadro.mydns.jp/w/Place/Experience/34.pdf Dmitrii Kouznetsov. Experience about publishing with the “Book Publisher International". 2020.10.13.

2020.10.13, the reply is received:

Dear Dr. Dmitrii Kouznetsov,
Thank you for your mail. We are extremely sorry for the delay in hardcopy order. We have enjoyed the loyalty of our esteemed authors, as we always completed our promise before time from 2010. We are extremely sorry for your inconvenience due to the present delay. Not only your order, but we also have pending orders from many countries. Our publication division is located in a highly COVID19 infected area (Containment zone). As per Government order, all such areas are completely locked down from 23 March 2020. We could not even open our printing division from that day, as printing is a highly labour intensive job. Once the Government lifts the order, then we can enter our office. After opening the office, we may require another 15-20 days to complete the pending orders, as other authors are also waiting. We promise to give high priority to your order, once Govt orders allow us to open our printing division.
We know that you are facing tremendous problems due to this delay in order completion. But we are helpless in the present pandemic situation.
We politely request your patience and cooperation.
We are extremely sorry for the inconvenience.
Please be safe during this present pandemic situation. We wish best of health for you and your family members.
Thank you for your kind understanding.
With Regards
Ms. Ruma Bag