DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Beall's List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond Beall's List scholarly communication Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella Beyond Beall’s List Better understanding predatory publishers f you have even a fleeting interest in the deeply problematic submissions (e.g., Ievolving landscape of scholarly communi- Andrew Wakefield et al.’s article linking cation, you’ve probably heard of predatory autism to vaccines in The Lancet1 and Alan open access (OA) journals. These are OA Sokal’s nonsense article in Social Text).2 journals that exist for the sole purpose of Although predatory publishers predate profit, not the dissemination of high-quality OA, their recent explosion was expedited research findings and furtherance of knowl- by the emergence and success of fee- edge. These predators generate profits by charging OA journals. No matter how charging author fees, also known as article strong our urge to support and defend processing charges (APCs), that far exceed OA, librarians cannot deny the profusion the cost of running their low-quality, fly- of predators in the OA arena; John Bohan- by-night operations. non’s recent “sting” made abundantly clear Charging a fee is not itself a marker of (despite methodological flaws) that there a predatory publisher: many reputable OA are many bad actors.3 Rather, we should journals use APCs to cover costs, especially seek to understand their methods, track in fields where research is often funded by their evolution, and communicate their grants. (Many subscription-based journals characteristics to our patrons. also charge authors fees, sometimes per page or illustration.) However, predatory Blacklists, whitelists, and other journals are primarily fee-collecting op- defenses against predatory erations—they exist for that purpose and publishers only incidentally publish articles, gener- The highest-profile watchdog of predatory ally without rigorous peer review, despite publishers is Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at claims to the contrary. Of course, low-quality publishing is not new. There have long been opportunistic Monica Berger is electronic resources and technical publishers (e.g., vanity presses and sellers services librarian at New York City College of Technology-CUNY, email: mberger@citytech. of public domain content) and deceptive cuny.edu, and Jill Cirasella is associate librarian for publishing practices (e.g., yellow journal- public services and scholarly communication at The ism and advertisements formatted to look Graduate Center, CUNY, email: [email protected] like articles). Contact series editors Zach Coble, digital scholarship It is also not unique to OA journals. specialist at New York University, and Adrian Ho, director There are many mediocre subscription- of digital scholarship at the University of Kentucky Libraries, at [email protected] with article based journals, and even respected ideas subscription-based journals have accepted © 2015 Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella C&RL News March 2015 132 the University of Colorado-Denver, who these publishers.10,11,12 Imperfect English curates a blacklist of “potential, possible, or a predominantly non-Western editorial or probable” predatory OA publishers and board does not make a journal preda- journals.4 Beall’s list has become a go-to tory. An interesting example is Hindawi, tool and has even been featured in The an Egyptian publisher once considered New York Times,5 but it is not the final word predatory that improved its practices and on predatory publishing, partially because standards over time. If we accept that there Beall himself has a complicated, and not is a continuum from devious and duplici- entirely supportive, attitude toward OA tous to simply low-quality and amateurish, in general. then it is likely, as Crawford believes, that Without a doubt, Beall has amassed some of the publishers on Beall’s list are considerable knowledge and greatly in- not actually predatory.13 creased awareness of predatory publish- Although Beall’s contributions are argu- ing. He is recognized as a leading expert ably compromised by his attitudes about and has gone largely unchallenged, prob- OA, the criteria he uses for his list are an ably both because nonexperts are eager excellent starting point for thinking about for blacklists that seemingly obviate the the hallmarks of predatory publishers and need for individual analysis of publishers journals.14 He encourages thorough analy- and journals, and because little empirical sis, including scrutiny of editorial boards research has been done on the phenom- and business practices. Some of his red enon of predatory publishing. However, flags provide a lot of “bang for your buck” in 2014, Walt Crawford took Beall to task in that they are both easy to spot and likely in an article called “Ethics and Access 1: to indicate a predatory operation. These The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.”6 include editors or editorial board members Crawford criticizes Beall for not con- with no or fake academic affiliations, lack textualizing predatory or low-quality of clarity about fees, publisher names and publishing as a phenomenon that predates journal titles with geographic terms that OA and is not exclusive to OA journals. have no connection to the publisher’s He also points out that Beall favors toll- physical location or journal’s geographic access publishers, specifically Elsevier, scope, bogus impact factor claims and praising its “consistent high quality.”7 invented metrics, and false claims about However, a simple Google search for “fake where the journal is indexed. Elsevier journals” reveals Beall’s position Beall also lists common practices in- as tenuous. Furthermore, Beall conflates dicative of low-quality but not necessarily OA journals with “author pays” journals, predatory journals. He is rightfully wary of and reveals his skepticism, if not hostility, journals that solicit manuscripts by spam- about OA.8 ming researchers, as established publishers Politics aside, Beall’s laser-like focus generally do not approach scholars, as on predatory publishers may prevent him well as publishers or editors with email from having a broader perspective on addresses from Gmail, Yahoo, etc. Also, scholarly communication. Case in point: he wisely warns researchers away from Beall has blithely declared the “serials journals with bizarrely broad or disjointed crisis” to be over,9 but those of us who scopes and journals that boast extremely manage resources beg to differ. rapid publication, which usually suggests Another concerning aspect of Beall’s no or only cursory peer review. work is his evaluation of OA publish- Given the fuzziness between low-qual- ers from less economically developed ity and predatory publishers, whitelisting, countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill or listing publishers and journals that have Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against been vetted and verified as satisfying cer- March 2015 133 C&RL News tain standards, may be a better solution open peer review—i.e., any form of peer than blacklisting. The central player in the review where the reviewer’s identity is not whitelisting movement is the Directory of hidden—increases transparency and allows Open Access Journals (DOAJ). journals to demonstrate their standards.19 In response to the Bohannon sting, DOAJ removed 114 journals and revamped The role of librarians its criteria for inclusion.15 Journals ac- As librarians, we need to understand the cepted into DOAJ after March 2014 under hallmarks and methods of predatory pub- the stricter rules are marked with a green lishers for several reasons. Most obviously, tick symbol, and DOAJ has announced we must help researchers avoid becoming that it will require the remaining 99% of its prey and help readers recognize low-quality listed journals to reapply for acceptance. journals. In addition, we need to counter- At the basic level, a journal must be act the misconceptions and alarmism that chiefly scholarly; make the content im- stymie the acceptance of OA. mediately available (i.e., no embargoes); For example, many researchers conflate provide quality control through an editor, journal quality with publication model or editorial board, and peer review; have a business model, and librarians can help registered International Standard Serial untangle those concepts. To do so, we Number (ISSN); and exercise transparency must arm ourselves with clear, convincing about APCs. Journals that meet additional explanations that quality and reputation are requirements, such as providing external independent of openness, that OA journals archiving and creating persistent links, do not necessarily charge fees, and that fees are recognized with the DOAJ Seal. DOAJ do not necessarily imply predatoriness. We receives an assist from the ISSN Centre, should be ready with examples of high- which in 2014 added language reserving quality and well-respected OA journals, as the right to deny ISSNs to publishers that well as reassuring facts about fees (e.g., as provide misleading information.16 of January 2015, 63% of journals listed in An organization that whitelists publish- DOAJ have no fees) and efforts to marginal- ers by accepting them as members is the ize predatory publishers. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Associa- Furthermore, we need to make sure tion (OASPA). Members must apply and that researchers understand that OA can be pledge to adhere to a code of conduct achieved not only through OA journals but that disallows any form of predatory be- also through self-archiving in repositories. havior.17 OASPA has made errors in vet- Confusion on this point is still rampant, and ting applicants, though: it admitted some too many researchers write off OA entirely publishers that it later had to reject (e.g., because they’ve encountered suspect OA Dove Medical Press). journals. Of course, no blacklist or whitelist can Clarifying the two approaches can re- substitute for head-on investigation of a engage these researchers with the prospect journal. Open Access Journal Quality In- of opening scholarly literature. Of course, it dicators, a rubric by Sarah Beaubien and is always strategic to explain the benefits of Max Eckard featuring both positive and OA in general, including increased reader- negative journal characteristics, can help ship and citations.
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]
  • How to Cite Complete Issue More Information About This
    Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia ISSN: 0120-6230 ISSN: 2422-2844 Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia Botero, Maryory Astrid Gómez Editorial Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, no. 90, 2019, January-March, pp. 7-8 Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia DOI: 10.17533/udea.redin.n90a01 Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=43065097001 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No.90, pp. 7-8, Jan-Mar 2019 EDITORIAL Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, The characteristics common to all these predatory Denver, called ”predatory Publisher” to publishers who journals and publishers are [1]: create an exploitative open-access academic publishing business model, what many have called an era of academic 1. There are no such reviewers and the works are extortion. Under this model, they charge publication fees published without any type of Peer Review. to authors without providing the editorial services of 2. They do not have indexing in any international legitimate journals. In 2008, Beall began to publish a database or repository. list of journals and publishers potentially or probably predators; in 2011, the list had 18 publishers, and in 2017 3. They do not offer editing service or assistance to the it had a list of more than 1100 journals and publishers that authors to improve the works.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Accreditation and Need of a Bibliometric Measure to Distinguish Predatory Conferences
    publications Viewpoint Conference Accreditation and Need of a Bibliometric Measure to Distinguish Predatory Conferences Pooyan Makvandi 1,* , Anahita Nodehi 2 and Franklin R. Tay 3 1 Centre for Materials Interfaces, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025 Pontedera, Italy 2 Department of Statistics, Computer Science, Applications (DiSIA), Florence University, Viale Morgagni 59, 50134 Florence, Italy; Anahita.nodehi@unifi.it 3 The Graduate School, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Abstract: Academic conferences offer scientists the opportunity to share their findings and knowledge with other researchers. However, the number of conferences is rapidly increasing globally and many unsolicited e-mails are received from conference organizers. These e-mails take time for researchers to read and ascertain their legitimacy. Because not every conference is of high quality, there is a need for young researchers and scholars to recognize the so-called “predatory conferences” which make a profit from unsuspecting researchers without the core purpose of advancing science or collaboration. Unlike journals that possess accreditation indices, there is no appropriate accreditation for international conferences. Here, a bibliometric measure is proposed that enables scholars to evaluate conference quality before attending. Keywords: conference indicator; conference impact factor; conference accreditation; bibliometric measure Citation: Makvandi, P.; Nodehi, A.; Tay, F.R. Conference Accreditation and Need of a Bibliometric Measure 1. Introduction to Distinguish Predatory Conferences. Academic conferences offer scientists the opportunity to share their findings and Publications 2021, 9, 16. https:// knowledge with other researchers. Conferences are organized by institutions or societies, doi.org/10.3390/publications9020016 and in rare cases, by individuals [1].
    [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]
  • Seeking Quality in Scholarly Publishing: How to Identify and Avoid Predatory Publishers
    SEEKING QUALITY IN SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING: HOW TO IDENTIFY AND AVOID PREDATORY PUBLISHERS Jeffrey Beall University of Colorado Denver ORCID number 0000‐0001‐9012‐5330 University of Colorado Denver Publishing models for scholarly journals • Traditional (subscription) model • Hybrid open‐access • Platinum open‐access = free to author, free to reader • Delayed open access = subscription model but OA after some time • Gold open access = free to reader, author pays a fee Predatory Publishers and Journals • Predatory publishers (journals) are those that exploit the gold open‐ access model for their own profit • They take advantage of, exploit, and pander to scholarly authors • They pretend to be legitimate, copying established and respected journals' websites and practices • Many do a poor or fake peer review • Some name themselves as "Institutes," "Associations," or "Centers" • Some operate as single mega‐journals Chief Characteristics of Predatory Journals 1. The use deception (they don’t tell the truth) 2. They are not transparent 3. They do not follow scholarly publishing industry standards and best practices History of predatory publishers • I first started to receive spam email solicitations from publishers in 2008 and 2009 • My first publication about a predatory publisher was in 2009 • I coined the term "predatory publisher" in summer 2010 • I started my current blog in early 2012 • Not all open‐access journals are predatory Predatory Journals and Academic Evaluation [1] • Universities use scholarly publications as a measure of academic
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunistic Journals in the Clinical Pharmacology Spacea
    ACCP Position Statement Clinical Pharmacology Opportunistic Journals in the Clinical in Drug Development 2018, 7(4) 353–357 C 2018, The American College of Pharmacology Space: Clinical Pharmacology DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.466 A Policy Statement From the Publications and Public Policy Committees of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology David J. Greenblatt and Joseph S. Bertino Jr “Predatory journal” is the customary term, but “oppor- nations where labor costs are low. Sadly, it is not only tunistic journal” is more accurate. The situation that we opportunistic publishers that are involved in publishing face is a product of economic opportunity in a free- these journals, but more mainstream publishers are market economy. Profit is to be made through busi- involved as well.7,8 ness enterprises founded to fill a need for a product The process of promoting an opportunistic journal or service that people are willing to pay for. In addi- involves aggregation of E-mail addresses of potential tion, an awards system has been put into place by some author recruits, acquired through scans of legitimate foreign governments based only on having a publica- biomedical publications. Mass electronic mailings ag- tion in a journal.1 Entrepreneurs of predatory journals gressively solicit submissions of manuscripts, promising have stepped forward to fill these “needs,” apparently rapid peer-review, rapid open-access publication of with substantial success. The problem is that the legiti- accepted manuscripts, and extensive exposure of “your mate biomedical publication process, and the system of esteemed research” to the biomedical community.9 The merit-based peer-review used by academic medical and undersigned authors (DJG and JSB) typically receive scientific journals, are collateral damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Perils and Opportunities in Scholarly Publishing
    PRECAUCIÓN: INFORMACIÓN ESENCIAL ACERCA DE LOS EDITORES DEPREDADORES Jeffrey Beall University of Colorado Denver ORCID number 0000-0001-9012-5330 Publishing models for scholarly journals • Traditional (subscription) model • Hybrid open-access • Platinum open-access = free to author, free to reader • Delayed open access = subscription model but OA after some time • Gold open access = free to reader, author pays a fee Predatory Publishers and Journals • Predatory publishers (journals) are those that exploit the gold open- access model for their own profit • They take advantage of, exploit, and pander to scholarly authors • They pretend to be legitimate, copying established and respected journals' websites and practices • Many do a poor or fake peer review • Some name themselves as "Institutes," "Associations," or "Centers" • Some operate as single mega-journals Chief Characteristics of Predatory Journals 1. The use deception (they don’t tell the truth) 2. They are not transparent 3. They do not follow scholarly publishing industry standards and best practices History of predatory publishers • I first started to receive spam email solicitations from publishers in 2008 and 2009 • My first publication about a predatory publisher was in 2009 • I coined the term "predatory publisher" in summer 2010 • I started my current blog in early 2012 • Not all open-access journals are predatory Predatory Journals and Academic Evaluation [1] • Universities use scholarly publications as a measure of academic achievement • Academic managers want objective
    [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]
  • Exposing the Predators Methods to Stop Predatory Journals
    Exposing the predators Methods to stop predatory journals Master Thesis Book and Digital Media Studies Leiden Universtity Margot Wehrmeijer 0775614 Supervisor and second reader prof. dr. A.H. van der Weel (chair) Leiden University mr. drs. P.A.F. Verhaar Leiden University 19,208 words August 15, 2014 Abstract The internet is greatly improving the impact of scholarly journals, but also poses new threats to their quality. Publishers have arisen that abuse the Gold Open Ac- cess model, in which the author pays a fee to get his article published, to make money with so-called predatory journals. These publishers falsely claim to con- duct peer review, which makes them more prone to publish fraudulent and plagia- rised research. This thesis looks at three possible methods to stop predatory journals: black- and white-lists, open peer review systems and new metrics. Black- and white- lists have set up rules and regulations that credible publishers and journals should follow. Open peer review systems should make it harder for predatory publishers to make false claims about their peer review process. Metrics should measure more aspects of research impact and become less liable to gaming. The question is, which of these three methods is the best candidate to stop predatory journals. As all three methods have their drawbacks, especially for new but high qual- ity journals, none of them stop predatory journals on its own can. Rather, we need a system in which researchers, publishers and reviewers communicate more openly about the research they create, disseminate and read. But above all, we need to find a way to take away incentives for researchers and publishers to en- gage in fraudulent practices.
    [Show full text]
  • MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
    MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Information regarding the publisher MDPI is one of the first publishers to publish open access. It is based in Basel, Switzerland. All publications in the current 331 peer-reviewed journals are published under a CC By license. MDPI is a member of COPE - a forum for research ethics, publication ethics and good practice guidelines, among others. Siehe auch : https://www.mdpi.com/ Controverse The publisher was assessed as unserious in February 2014 (Jeffrey Beall, critic of the "uncontrolled growth" in open access). This assessment was revised in November 2015 after objections came from various sides to the irresponsible criticism, which was not substantiated with facts. An investigation by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA, https://oaspa.org/) finds their organization's standards met by MDPI. Information from the Helmholtz Working Group Bibliotheks- und Informationsmana- gement (20./21.4.2021) The assessment of MDPI's publishing practices in the working group is divided. Disadvantages are rated as advantages by other centers. Disadvantages: Aggressive promotion of publication in MDPI journals in some cases. Reference to other scientific institutions that have also published in MDPI to "encourage" publication. Call for Special Issues Very fast turnaround on manuscript submissions Advantages: Possibility to publish Special Issues Very fast processing of manuscript submission Rewards reviewers when they complete reviews in a short period of time Very good, detailed reviews in some cases Situation in the UFZ At the UFZ, the (not comprehensive) opinion on MDPI is also divided. In order to give every scientist some guidance for evaluation, some facts about MDPI are given here.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Beall's List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research CUNY Graduate Center 2015 Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers Monica Berger CUNY New York City College of Technology Jill Cirasella CUNY Graduate Center How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/70 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] scholarly communication Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella Beyond Beall’s List Better understanding predatory publishers f you have even a fleeting interest in the deeply problematic submissions (e.g., Ievolving landscape of scholarly communi- Andrew Wakefield et al.’s article linking cation, you’ve probably heard of predatory autism to vaccines in The Lancet1 and Alan open access (OA) journals. These are OA Sokal’s nonsense article in Social Text).2 journals that exist for the sole purpose of Although predatory publishers predate profit, not the dissemination of high-quality OA, their recent explosion was expedited research findings and furtherance of knowl- by the emergence and success of fee- edge. These predators generate profits by charging OA journals. No matter how charging author fees, also known as article strong our urge to support and defend processing charges (APCs), that far exceed OA, librarians cannot deny the profusion the cost of running their low-quality, fly- of predators in the OA arena; John Bohan- by-night operations. non’s recent “sting” made abundantly clear Charging a fee is not itself a marker of (despite methodological flaws) that there a predatory publisher: many reputable OA are many bad actors.3 Rather, we should journals use APCs to cover costs, especially seek to understand their methods, track in fields where research is often funded by their evolution, and communicate their grants.
    [Show full text]
  • Alleged Predatory Publisher Buys Medical Journals
    News CMAJ Alleged predatory publisher buys medical journals ne of the world’s most well- known “predatory” publishers O has bought two commercial Canadian publishers of about 16 medi- cal specialty journals. But one former owner says during the purchasing negotiations, the new publisher agreed not use predatory practices. The journals were previously pub- lished by Pulsus Group in Oakville, Ontario, and Andrew John Publishing in Dundas, Ontario. As of September 28, the journals appear on the Pulsus Group website, which gives an address in Lon- don, UK, where Pulsus Group UK was registered in August 2016. It is a subsid- Pulsus Group iary of OMICS International of Hyder- Pulsus journals are now owned by a newly created subsidiary of OMICS International, abad, India, which is facing charges from an alleged predatory publisher based in Hyderabad, India. the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for “deceiving academics and researchers OMICS. Brockington learned this during nals’ impact factors and listing in Scopus about the nature of its publications and a conference call with the new publisher and PubMed, in order to look legitimate, hiding publication fees ranging from hun- when she asked who now owned Pulsus he adds. dreds to thousands of dollars,” according Group. When she contacted editors of Beall says OMICS’ main practice is to an FTC statement. other Pulsus journals, they were unaware to “hold papers hostage.” Authors sub- Prior to this latest sale, back in that the new publisher was OMICS. mit papers in response to spam emails December 2015, Pulsus sold four jour- When Robert Kalina decided to looking for submissions.
    [Show full text]