The following papers have been published: Interval Valued Neutrosophic Graphs; Neutrosophic Crisp Probability Theory & Decision Making Process; On Strong Interval Valued Neutrosophic Graphs; The Concept of Neutrosophic Less than or Equal: A New Insight in Unconstrained Geometric Programming; Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method for n-wise Criteria Comparisons and Inconsistent Problems.

The following articles have been published: Regular and Totally Regular Interval Valued Neutrosophic Hypergraphs; Isomorphism of Single Valued Neutrosophic Hypergraphs; Isomorphism of Interval Valued Neutrosophic Hypergraphs; An Isolated Interval Valued Neutrosophic Graphs; Isomorphism of Bipolar Single Valued Neutrosophic Hypergraphs; Subtraction and Division of Neutrosophic Numbers; Rough Neutrosophic Hyper-complex set and its Application to Multi-Attribute Decision Making.

The "Critical Review" reflects the political, scientific and literary debate of the times. The journal was edited for its first seven years by Tobias Smollett and reflected the slashing, combative style and intellectual range of its editor. This 16-volume set reproduces this journal.

Neutrosophic set theory provides a new tool to handle the uncertainties in shortest path problem (SPP). This paper introduces the SPP from a source node to a destination node on a neutrosophic graph in which a positive neutrosophic number is assigned to each edge as its edge cost. We define this problem as neutrosophic shortest path problem (NSSPP). A simple algorithm is also introduced to solve the NSSPP. The proposed algorithm finds the neutrosophic shortest path (NSSP) and its corresponding neutrosophic shortest path length (NSSPL) between source node and destination node.

Contributors to current issue (listed in papers’ order): Atena Tahmasbpour Meikola, Arif Mehmood, Wadood Ullah, Said Broumi, Muhammad Imran Khan, Humera Qureshi, Muhammad Ibrar Abbas, Humaira Kalsoom, Fawad Nadeem, T. Chalapathi, L. Madhavi, R. Suresh, S. Palaniammal, Nivetha Martin, Florentin Smarandache, S. A. Edalatpanah, Rafif Alhabib, A. A. Salama, Memet Şahin, Abdullah Kargın, Murat Yücel, Dimacha Dwibrang Mwchahary, Bhimraj Basumatary, R. S. Alghamdi, N. O. Alshehri, Shigui Du, Rui Yong, Jun Ye, Vasantha Kandasamy, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Saqlain, Asad Mehmood, Khushbakht Naseer, Sonia Yaqoob, Sudipta Gayen, Sripati Jha, Manoranjan Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Huseyin Kamaci, Shawkat Alkhazaleh, Anas Al-Masarwah, Abd Ghafur Ahmad, Merve Sena Uz, Akbar Rezaei, Mohamed Grida, Rehab Mohamed, Abdelnaser H. Zaid.

New York Post Best Book of 2016 We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don’t have enough of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion. Basing his argument on groundbreaking scientific findings, Bloom makes the case that some of the worst decisions made by individuals and nations—who to give money to, when to go to war, how to respond to climate change, and who to imprison—are too often motivated by honest, yet misplaced, emotions. With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system; from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and—yes—ultimately more moral. Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make.