DOCSLIB.ORG

Comment ILLUSTRATION by DAVID PARKINS DAVID by ILLUSTRATION Promise Was Doubtful and Its Validity Unlikely to Have Been Vetted

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comment ILLUSTRATION by DAVID PARKINS DAVID by ILLUSTRATION Promise Was Doubtful and Its Validity Unlikely to Have Been Vetted Setting the agenda in research Comment ILLUSTRATION BY DAVID PARKINS DAVID BY ILLUSTRATION promise was doubtful and its validity unlikely to have been vetted. Predatory journals: no Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised definition, no defence quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval. Naive readers are not the only victims. Many researchers have been duped Agnes Grudniewicz, David Moher, Kelly D. Cobey and 32 co-authors into submitting to predatory journals, in which their work can be overlooked. One study that focused on 46,000 researchers based in Italy Leading scholars and hen ‘Jane’ turned to alternative found that about 5% of them published in such medicine, she had already outlets1. A separate analysis suggests preda- publishers from ten exhausted radiotherapy, chemo- tory publishers collect millions of dollars in countries have agreed a therapy and other standard publication fees that are ultimately paid out definition of predatory treatments for breast cancer. Her by funders such as the US National Institutes Walternative-medicine practitioner shared an of Health (NIH)2. publishing that can protect article about a therapy involving vitamin infu- One barrier to combating predatory pub- scholarship. It took 12 hours sions. To her and her practitioner, it seemed lishing is, in our view, the lack of an agreed to be authentic grounds for hope. But when definition. By analogy, consider the historical of discussion, 18 questions Jane showed the article to her son-in-law (one criteria for deciding whether an abnormal and 3 rounds to reach. of the authors of this Comment), he realized it bulge in the aorta, the largest artery in the body, came from a predatory journal — meaning its could be deemed an aneurysm — a dangerous 210 | Nature | Vol 576 | 12 December 2019 ©2019 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. ©2019 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. condition. One accepted definition was based NO LIST TO RULE THEM ALL on population norms, another on the size of Assessments of which journals are likely to be predatory or legitimate do not tally, the bulge relative to the aorta and a third on an and titles can appear in both categories. There is no way to know which journals were considered for a list but left o, or which were not considered. absolute measure of aorta width. Prevalence varied fourfold depending on the definition Suspected Legitimate predatory journals journals used. This complicated efforts to assess risk and Cabells ‘predatory’ Cabells ‘verified’ interventions, and created uncertainty about 3 § who should be offered a high-risk operation . Beall’s* 10,406 10,077 DOAJ Everyone agrees that predatory publishers sow confusion, promote shoddy scholarship 0 979 and waste resources. What is needed is consen- 228 sus on a definition of predatory journals. This would provide a reference point for research 1,135 0 0 11,306 journals into their prevalence and influence, and would help in crafting coherent interventions. 0 To hammer out such a consensus and to 0 map solutions, we and others met in Ottawa, 31 1 6 Canada, over two days in April this year. The 43 participants hailed from 10 countries and 34 represented publishing societies, research Beall’s list highlighted the The DOAJ relies mainly funders, researchers, policymakers, academic issue of predatory journals, on information from but faced criticism over publishers. It regularly institutions, libraries and patient partners transparency and legal purges titles that do (that is, patients and caregivers who proac- threats from listed titles. It Some journals deemed legitimate by not meet quality ceased operation in 2017. the DOAJ were deemed predatory criteria. tively engage in research). Our focus was the by Beall’s and/or Cabells lists. biomedical sciences, but our recommenda- tions should apply broadly. *Informally assessed by University of Colorado Denver librarian Jerey Beall in ~2008–17; Pay-to-access lists from Cabells, a scholarly analytics company; §The Directory of Open Access Journals, a community-curated list requiring journal best practices such as peer review and statements on author fees and licensing. Here we put forward our definition. We 5. REF. FROM ADAPTED SOURCE: describe what it took to achieve consensus and A journal’s membership of agencies such as CVs. We discussed replacing the term entirely how we’ll move forward. COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics), with language that recognizes nuances in curated indexes such as Web of Science, or publishers’ quality and motivation. Alterna- The definition being listed in the Directory of Open Access tives considered included ‘dark’, ‘deceptive’, The consensus definition reached was: Journals (DOAJ) is insufficient to guarantee ‘illegitimate’ and ‘acting in bad faith’. Ulti- “Predatory journals and publishers are entities quality. Predatory journals have found ways mately, we concluded that the term ‘preda- that prioritize self-interest at the expense of to penetrate these lists, and new journals have tory’ has become recognized in the scholarly scholarship and are characterized by false or to publish for at least a year before they can community. Implementation science suggests misleading information, deviation from best apply for indexing. that introducing new nomenclature would take editorial and publication practices, a lack of A scoping review comparing publications considerable resources, which we felt could be transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and about predatory journals found that their better put towards combating predatory pub- indiscriminate solicitation practices.” characterizations sometimes overlapped, lishing directly. So we recommend keeping the sometimes did not and sometimes directly word ‘predatory’ while noting its limitations. Road to consensus conflicted7. These inconsistencies suggest Since the term ‘predatory publishers’ was that crafting a practical definition would Details matter coined in 2010, hundreds of scholarly articles, require building consensus across researchers, Predatory journals are driven by self-interest, including 38 research papers, have been written publishers, research institutions and the usually financial, at the expense of scholarship. warning about them. Scientific societies and broader public. They are characterized by the following: publishers (including Springer Nature) have Participants in our summit completed a helped to establish the ‘Think. Check. Submit.’ three-round modified Delphi survey (a struc- False or misleading information. This applies campaign to guide authors. But it is not enough. tured technique to elicit input, offer feedback to how the publisher presents itself. A preda- More than 90 checklists exist to help identify and build consensus) that included 18 ques- tory journal’s website or e-mails often present predatory journals using characteristics such tions and 28 sub-questions. There were also contradictory statements, fake impact factors, as sloppy presentation or titles that include 12 hours of discussion, followed by 2 further incorrect addresses, misrepresentations of words such as ‘international’. This is an over- rounds of feedback and revision. the editorial board, false claims of indexing or whelming number for authors. Only three Crafting a consensus definition was hard. membership of associations and misleading of the lists were developed using research Even reaching agreement on the use of ‘preda- claims about the rigour of peer review. evidence4. Paywalled lists of quality journals tory’ was a challenge. Part of the group wanted and predatory journals show that there is an a term that acknowledges that some authors Deviation from best editorial and publica- appetite for clear, authoritative guidance. But turn to these outlets fully aware of their low tion practices. Standards here have been set these lists are inconsistent and sometimes quality; these scholars willingly pay to pub- out in the joint statement on Principles of out of reach5,6 (see ‘No list to rule them all’). lish in predatory journals to add a line to their Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Nature | Vol 576 | 12 December 2019 | 211 ©2019 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. ©2019 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. Comment Publishing (see go.nature.com/35mq7mj), of peer review, even though negligent peer problem, tracking numbers of publications issued by the DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly review is often a prominent feature of pred- in predatory journals by discipline and geog- Publishers Association, COPE and the World atory journals. We are not saying that peer raphy. We will work with funders, institutions, Association of Medical Editors. Examples review is unimportant, only that it is cur- patients and other stakeholders to iteratively of substandard practice include not having rently impossible to assess. Unfortunately, develop resources to assess journal quality. We a retraction policy, requesting a transfer of many legitimate journals fail to make their are seeking funding to create and test a digital copyright when publishing an open-access peer-review processes sufficiently transpar- tool to achieve these goals. article and not specifying a Creative Com- ent, for instance by sharing peer reviewers’ Efforts to counter predatory publishing mons licence in an open-access journal. These comments and other data. At the moment, need to be constant and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited
    publications Article How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited Bo-Christer Björk 1,*, Sari Kanto-Karvonen 2 and J. Tuomas Harviainen 2 1 Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; Sari.Kanto@ilmarinen.fi (S.K.-K.); tuomas.harviainen@tuni.fi (J.T.H.) * Correspondence: bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi Received: 19 February 2020; Accepted: 24 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Publishing: Top 10 Things You Need to Know
    Predatory Publishing: Top 10 Things You Need to Know By Gale A. Oren, MILS, Librarian, John W. Henderson Library, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan 1. Open access vs. predatory journals Many open access journals are legitimate and reputable, and offer authors the means for maintaining copyright (right to distribute, etc.) over their own work. Those considered to be "predatory" are merely pay-to-publish websites that exploit researchers and ultimately reduce the credibility of published research. 2. Why are predatory journals on the rise? • Profitability for the predatory publishers • Author confusion as to which journals are reputable • Authors unaware of the harm caused by supporting this predatory industry • Demise of "Beall’s List" (2009–2016), a predatory journal blacklist that many relied upon for guidance 3. Obvious signs of predatory journals • Heavy solicitation of authors and editorial board members via email • Poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation on website and/or in emails • Journal titles similar to well-known reputable journals • Expedited peer review offered • Information about author fees, editorial policies, peer-review etc. not clearly stated • No verifiable contact information provided, including mailing address • Suspicious nature and quality of articles already published 4. Covert signs of predatory journals • Author fee charged before peer review, or author fee not mentioned at all • Unknown or unwilling editorial board members listed • Bogus impact factor • No response to emails once author fee is submitted 5. National Institutes of Health (NIH) position Ensuring the credibility of NIH funded research is important to maintaining public trust in research. 1,2 6. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) position The FTC brought a lawsuit against OMICS, a publisher based in India who went from 10 journals to over 700 in the past 8 years, claiming that publishing fees are not revealed prior to manuscript submission.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Publishing in Management Research: a Call for Open Peer Review, Management Learning, 50(5): 607-619
    Predatory Publishing Working to eliminate predatory journals and conferences Twittter: @fake_journals Web site: https://predatory-publishing.com/ Thank you for downloading this document. It contains the three papers referred to in the blog post: https://predatory-publishing.com/read-these-three-articles-to-understand-predatory-publishing/ Please see the post if you need reminding. The citation for the next article is: Beall, J. (2013) Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access, Learned Publishing, 26(2): pp 79-84. DOI: 1087/20130203 Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access 79 Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access Jeffrey Beall Learned Publishing, 26: 79–84 doi:10.1087/20130203 POINT OF VIEW Predatory publishing is just Introduction I have been closely following and par- one of the consequences of ticipating in the open-access (OA) movement since 2008. In that year, when the gold OA model fi rst began to be implemented on a large scale, gold open access I noticed the appearance of several new publishers that lacked trans- Jeffrey BEALL parency and used deceptive websites University of Colorado Denver to attract manuscript submissions and the accompanying author fees. This article examines the ways the gold open-access model is negatively affecting scholarly Initially, I printed out copies of their communication. web pages and placed them in a blue folder. In 2009, I published a review of the publisher Bentham Open the communication of science. I increased dramatically worldwide, in the library review journal the argue that the gold OA model is a creating the need and the markets for Charleston Advisor.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Publishing Practices: Is There Life After Beall's List?
    volume 27, issue 2, pages 53-70 (2017) Predatory Publishing Practices: Is There Life After Beall’s List? Denise Rosemary Nicholson Scholarly Communications and Copyright Services Office, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa [email protected] ABSTRACT Background. Scholarly communication is an ever-evolving practice. As publishing advanced from the printed format to digital formats, new trends, practices and platforms emerged in academia. As reputable publishers adapted their business models to accommodate open access, many non-reputable publishers have emerged with questionable business models and less-than- favourable or unacceptable publishing services. Objectives. This paper discusses changing trends in scholarly publishing, the advent of and problems caused by pervasive predatory publishing practices, and possible solutions. The paper also investigates possible alternatives to Beall’s list and whether a “one-stop shop” black- or white list would serve as a comprehensive tool for scholarly authors. Results. The paper concludes that there is no “one-stop shop” or comprehensive resource or guidelines available at this stage for scholarly authors to consult before publishing. It alerts scholars to be cautious and to do research about potential publishers, before submitting manuscripts for publication. Contributions. It provides recommendations and some useful resources to assist authors before they publish their works. INTRODUCTION The landscape of scholarly communication is ever-evolving. Ever since the first printed publication there have been variant policies, practices, standards and processes in publishing houses. There have been excellent high or gold standard publishers offering peer-review by expert researchers in their specific disciplines. They also offer impact factors attractive to researchers, reasonable subscription fees and ancillary services.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying and Avoiding Predatory Publishers
    Research sans frontières: How to be a productive researcher when working from home Identifying and Avoiding Predatory Publishers Victoria Eke Scholarly Communications Librarian Concordia University of Edmonton Acknowledgement: Janice Kung & Thane Chambers, University of Alberta Library Outline - Open Access and predatory publishing - Defining Open Access - Author processing charges (APCs) - Assessing unfamiliar journals - Worksheet - CARL infographic: How to Assess a Journal - Video: Think, Check, Submit - Finding the right place to publish - Beware: Fake conferences 2 Open Access and predatory publishing 3 What is Open Access (OA)? - “Open Access (OA) is a model of scholarly communication that promises to greatly improve the accessibility of results of research.” - Research that is published OA is - digital - online - accessible free of charge - free of most copyright and licensing restrictions (although it does require that proper attribution of works be given to authors) - Sometimes author fees are collected for publication and website maintenance. http://www.carl-abrc.ca/advancing-research/scholarly-communication/open-access/ Two routes to Open Access - Gold Open Access: - The final version of an article is made permanently accessible for everyone, immediately after publication. - Benefits: - Increased citations, downloads and views - Easy compliance with institutional and funder mandates - Copyright is retained by authors - Greater public engagement https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/open-access/what-is-open-access/10286522 https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/open-access/benefits-of-gold-open-access/10286524 Two routes to Open Access - Green Open Access: - Also known as self-archiving. - Refers to the practice of placing a version of an author’s manuscript into a repository, making it freely accessible for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access, Predatory Publishing and Peer-Review
    Fernandez-Llimos F. Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharmacy Practice 2014 Jan- Mar;12(1):427. Editorial Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review Fernando FERNANDEZ-LLIMOS. Keywords: Publishing; Access to Information; Peer Review, Research; Codes of Ethics; Cooperative Behavior *In recent years, scholarly publishing faced a new paradigm regarding the accessibility: the open access movement. “If an article is "Open Access" it means that it can be freely accessed by anyone in the world using an internet connection”.1 The Budapest Open Access Initiative states: “By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself”.2 Some researchers may have never been concerned about this topic. It obviously means that they are affiliated with a rich institution from a rich country. There are few things more discouraging for a researcher than performing a literature search, retrieving a list of potentially interesting articles, and not being able to access many of them because one’s library does not subscribe those journals. And this lack of access will increase, even in major Universities from rich countries3, where the average cost of subscription reached 12,000 USD per faculty member more than 10 years ago.4 Administrations are regulating the access to the results of publicly funded researches by using these open access systems: initially, through a voluntary Public Access Policy and then making it mandatory.5 The European Union slowly followed a similar policy, initiated at the Seventh Framework Programme.6 Many other institutions and countries are following this movement.7 PubMed Central is a free archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Predatory Publishers*
    Avoiding Predatory Publishers* What is predatory publishing? Academic publishing is undergoing a shift from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish. Pay-to-publish journals, more commonly known as open access journals, are free to read but charge the authors an upfront article publishing fee. Although many open access journals are credible and reputable, there is a growing and thriving black-market economy of open access journals that take advantage of authors and the academic pressure to publish. These “predatory journals” are disguised as genuine scholarly publications but instead publish whatever the author submits in return for the payment of an article processing charge. This publishing approach not only poses a threat to the authors and their reputation but also compromises the integrity of the scientific and medical literature. How big is the problem? Number of scientific journals = ~28,000 Estimated number of predatory journals = 8000 Estimated number of predatory medical journals = 1200-1500 Common characteristics of predatory publishers • Disguised as an open access publisher, whereby content is made freely available by the publisher to read and is usually funded by publication fees (i.e., article processing charges) • Primary goal is to make money (through fees) • Does not care about the quality of the work published (i.e., little or no editing, no peer review) • Makes false claims or promises (e.g., claims of high impact factors or indexing) • Engages in unethical business practices (e.g., does not seek peer review as advertised) • Fails to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly publishing *Adapted from Gastel B., Good B., Kemper M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing
    The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive? Richard G Dudley Adjunct Associate Professor International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cornell University [email protected] Abstract Almost 50% of scholarly articles are currently open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of OA threatens this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of sub-standard and predatory journals. The Rise of Open Access Publishing The Generation of Academic Knowledge Knowledge Builds on Knowledge, Much scholarly work is built on knowledge but Access is Essential cost to access publications - discovered or created by previous scholars. The Potentially Available Scholarly Knowledge access to details of that previous work are communicated via + scholarly - publications scholarly publications. Although the form of these Quality + has changed over the years, the most common form Scholarly + Publications of communication now is via journal articles and + Increasing Body of Quality Scholarly Knowledge Available obsolescence of to Scholars + Knowledge books. Access to this accumulated knowledge is an ability to knowledge publish issue of vital importance to scholars around the findings world because, at present, much of it is unavailable - - loss of + knowledge to them. It should be. Scholars also need to be able cost to quality publish new unpublished findings - scholarly to publish their findings, so that others can benefit scholarly information activities (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Publish and Perish in the Hands of Predatory Journals
    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2017) 89(2): 787-788 (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-37652017892 www.scielo.br/aabc EDITORIAL NOTE Publish and perish in the hands of predatory journals YRAIMA CORDEIRO and LUIS MAURÍCIO T.R. LIMA Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 373, Bloco B, Sala 17, Cidade Universitária, 21941-902 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Since the publishing of Jeffrey Beall´s list of possible predatory open-access journals in 2010 (Beall 2013, 787 Butler 2013), not much changed regarding the avalanche of invitations for publications from publishers that are almost unknown by the scientific community. Beall listed more than 1,000 journals by the end of December, 2016. However, the author spontaneously removed the list in January 2017 (Silver 2017). The pressure for publication is increasing exponentially, opening a door for publishers seeking easy money and catching inexperienced authors. Some journals offer speed of publication at high costs and there have been reports of journals publishing duplicate articles (Sanderson 2010) and invited Editors resigned after such incidents. Sometimes, the victim is not an inexperienced researcher. This year, a situation has come to our attention regarding a highly experienced Brazilian scientist (with over 50 published papers in indexed journals, over 2,000 citations, h-index >20). Names are intentionally omitted. This fellow received an invitation to contribute to a given journal with a choice of possible formats (revision, original paper, opinion, letter, etc).
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals Marilyn H
    PROFESSION AND SOCIETY Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals Marilyn H. Oermann, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN1, Jamie L. Conklin, MSLIS2, Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN3, Peggy L. Chinn, PhD, RN, FAAN4, Kathleen S. Ashton, PhD, RN, CNE5, Alison H. Edie, DNP, APRN, FNP-BC6, Sathya Amarasekara, MS7,&SusanC.Budinger,BS8 1 Thelma M. Ingles Professor of Nursing, Director of Evaluation and Educational Research, Duke University School of Nursing; Editor, Nurse Educator and Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Durham, NC, USA 2 Research & Education Librarian, Liaison to the School of Nursing, Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Durham, NC, USA 3 Editor-in-Chief, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, and Nurse Author & Editor; President and Owner, Maine Desk LLC, Portland, ME, USA 4 Editor, Advances in Nursing Science; Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT, USA 5 Assistant Professor, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA 6 Assistant Professor, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA 7 Statistician III, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA 8 Associate Director of Research Operations, Duke Office of Clinical Research, Durham, NC, USA Key words Abstract Editorial standards, ethical issues, nursing journals, predatory journals, publishing Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify predatory journals in nursing, describe their characteristics and editorial standards, and document Correspondence experiences of authors, peer reviewers, and editors affiliated with these jour- Dr. Marilyn H. Oermann, Duke University School nals. of Nursing, DUMC 3322, 307 Trent Drive, Design: Using two sources that list predatory journals, the research team Durham, NC 27710.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of Predatory Publishing (E.G., Clark and Smith, 2015; Grudniewicz Et Al., 2019)
    1 The concept of predatory publishing is complex and often controversial. There are numerous – often similar – definitions of predatory publishing (e.g., Clark and Smith, 2015; Grudniewicz et al., 2019). However, these definitions are broad and rely on subjective, normative judgments of best practices and professional ethics in academic publishing. In part due to the subjectivity involved in many definitions of predatory publishing, debates about predatory publishing are often highly contentious. Different scholars and academic stakeholders may have different philosophies and beliefs regarding the appropriateness and legitimacy of varying publishing practices. Our research provides empirical data on non-indexed publishers to enable scholars and academic stakeholders to make informed decisions about the legitimacy – or lack thereof – of journals and publishers, regardless of professional preferences and philosophies. The opacity of peer review in most academic journals makes it difficult to directly observe the legitimacy and quality of peer review. Although manuscript development and gatekeeping processes vary between different journals, it is often difficult to know what happens in the “black box” of peer review. This challenge is compounded with predatory or questionable academic journals, as such publishers often operate in covert and/or deceptive manners. Further, predatory journals and publishers are rarely indexed by institutions like the Web of Science, which makes surveilling and analyzing such journals difficult. However, document data and metadata can provide empirical evidence about the professionalism and operating procedures of questionable academic journals. Using a variety of web scraping techniques, we developed a database of non-indexed academic publishers, which includes numerous publishers on the Cabells Predatory Reports list.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Predatory Publishing
    Guide to Predatory Publishing Produced by the Open Access Working Group of the Leibniz Association, October 2018. As the publication market has changed, the number of journals has increased significantly. In some fields, there are so many publications that it is difficult to keep track of them all. They include some journals that do not feel obliged to comply with the rules of good scientific practice,1 and instead use the academic publishing market purely as a business model for the publishers. These publications, which are usually referred to as “predatory journals”, charge authors publication fees or article processing charges (APCs), but do not organise peer reviews or other appropriate forms of quality control. The publication of research findings in such journals primarily harms the authors involved, but also weakens public confidence in scientific research.2 In the following, we describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing in greater detail and present the necessary safeguards. What is the difference between predatory journals and serious journals? One of the main differences between predatory journals and serious scientific journals is that predatory journals largely do without editorial or quality control measures. In addition, one or more of the following will typically apply: • Predatory journals do not provide transparent costing – it is often unclear from the journal’s online presence or website what costs will be incurred and what they relate to. • Predatory journals list misleading or false information about indicators, especially impact factors. • Predatory journals offer very fast publication of manuscripts they receive, which is incompatible with the length of time usually required to carry out a serious review process.
    [Show full text]