In this paper we will consider the idea of logical pluralism with emphasis on Beall and Restall's (2006) account of pluralism. We begin by specification of logical exclusivism, logical relativism and different accounts of logical pluralism and their difference with Beall and Restall's account of logical pluralism. We show that Beall and Restall believe in a kind of semantic logical pluralism according to which there are different plausible interpretations of the "case" in Traski's definition of validity. On the other hand, they also believe the so-called idea of normativity of logic. According to the idea, the notion of logical validity has normative implications for evaluation of arguments in natural language. Our key claim is that the latter claim undermines Beall and Restall's logical pluralism, that is, the normativity of logic collapses their logical pluralism into logical exclusivism. The study of different formulations of the normativity of logic is less considered on debates relating to logical pluralism. Along with considering logical normativity, we will criticize Beall and Restall's pluralism.

According to logical pluralism, there are several correct systems of logic. Most types of logical pluralism are based on the acceptance of logical relativism which means that the correctness of a system of logic depends entirely on distinct components of that system. Nevertheless, Beall and Restall claimed that they have proposed a kind of pluralism that is presented in a single language and does not entail accepting relativism. In this article, having introduced some of the most important types of logical pluralism, we tried to show that, contrary to Beall and Restall, their pluralism (i) cannot be presented in a single language; (ii) involves accepting a kind of relativism. Based on these results, we have tried to show that, by introducing a view titled “ minimal monism” , if one wants to consider Beall and Restall pluralism as a credible perspective in this area, it is necessary for him to accept minimal monism.

The desperation to publish among the scientific and academic community has reached new pinnacles and a new threat to academic integrity has surfaced in the form of predatory journals. These journals try to attract the young researchers with aggressive advertisements promising an early turnaround time for publication which is through absence of peer review and comes at a cost in the form of article processing fees. Predatory journals are an increasing menace affecting research integrity since they assist in author misconduct. They exploit its very foundation which aims at conducting and reporting the research in a truthful way that in turn builds trust and confidence for science in the society. This review gives an overview of predatory journals, their modus operandi, the ethical concerns associated with them and means to curb this menace.

Information retrieval can be achieved through computerized processes by generating a list of relevant responses to a query. The document processor, matching function and query analyzer are the main components of an information retrieval system. Document retrieval system is fundamentally based on: Boolean, vector-space, probabilistic, and language models. In this paper, a new methodology for matching function of Boolean retrieval systems is proposed and tried to extend postings list data structures and increase the efficiency of using postings lists and skips. The final effect of these considerations is in decreasing the search time.