Search

Predatory journals offer the promise of prompt publication to those willing to pay the article submission or processing fee. However, these journals do not offer rigorous peer review. Studies have shown that a substantial share of corresponding authors in predatory journals come from South Asia, particularly India. This scoping review aims to assess what is known about the reasons why healthcare researchers working in South Asia publish in predatory journals. 66 reports (14 editorials, 20 letters, 5 research reports, 10 opinion articles, 14 reviews, 2 commentaries and 1 news report) were included in the data charting and analysis. The analysis of the reports identified three main reasons that made South Asian healthcare researchers publish in predatory journals: pressure to publish, lack of research support, and pseudo benefits. The review shows that predatory publishing in South Asia is a complex phenomenon. Combating predatory publications requires a holistic strategy that supersedes merely blacklisting these journals or listing criteria for journals that do meet academic standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document, titled "Predatory journals: How to recognise and keep clear!" discusses the issue of predatory publishing in the medical academic field. Predatory journals are defined as entities that prioritize self-interest over scholarship and engage in false or misleading practices. The document explores the factors that contribute to the growth of predatory practices, such as lack of awareness and pressure to publish. It also provides guidance on how to identify predatory journals and offers resources to help researchers avoid them. The document emphasizes the importance of raising awareness, promoting legitimate open access alternatives, and implementing stringent guidelines to combat predatory publishing. [Extracted from the article]

The past two decades have witnessed growing call and actions for free and immediate access to published scholarship online without technological, monetary or legal barriers from around the world. The phenomenon described as open access (OA) has been strengthened by the possibilities of digital network technologies represented in the ubiquitous Internet. While the goal of the OA movement remains good, it appears the epistemic disbalance in global knowledge creation and access has not abated. However, the promise of OA, the motivation on which it stands, its consequence and current state are reviewed in this paper with particular focus on the contribution of Africa to the global OA movement. It has been reported that the emergence of OA on the continent is albeit slow but with a mixed fortune of both progress and challenges. Notwithstanding, open access is seen as a development imperative for Africa that offers tremendous opportunities to the continent to actively contribute to global knowledge. It was reported that a number of universities and research institutions in Africa have adopted open access policies that require their researchers to publish their work in open access journals or repositories. The paper presented a number of open access initiatives and platforms that are actively being deployed to achieve OA mandate in the continent and concluded with recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. Methods: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Results: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. Conclusions: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To enhance open access (OA) journal publishing environments, this study proposed and applied a diagnostic framework for OA journal publishing. The framework includes three dimensions: OA policy establishment and disclosure, OA sustainability and journal openness quality. By applying this framework to nine OA journals in the field of science and technology in Korea, challenges faced by OA publishing were uncovered. For the dimension of OA policy establishment and disclosure, it was found that participants had lower perceptions of the importance of OA‐related financial disclosure and archiving policies compared with copyright policies. The dimension of OA sustainability was recognized as critical among participants. Finance was recognized as the most critical component of OA sustainability. Financial sources were mostly internal funding and article processing charges (APC), and participants perceived the current financial status of their journal positively. However, they were concerned about long‐term financial security. For the journal openness quality dimension, the participants were hesitant in disclosing reviews and reviewers, which can facilitate the prevention of fake peer review of predatory journals. Based on the findings, the article discusses how the challenging issues identified could be addressed. The results of this study may provide a guide for OA policy and OA system development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Napredak is the property of Croatian Pedagogical-Literary Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02–1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P <.001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic publishing model is very inequitable currently – most commercial publishers demand exorbitant prices for access to journal articles, either through subscription or article processing charges. In this digital era, when publishing costs are negligible, and the peer review process is voluntary, it is unreasonable to have such high access barriers. In this article, we have explored the idea of an accessible and equitable knowledge dissemination platform using next-generation technologies and emerging models in publication to challenge the commercial publishers' oligopoly in knowledge dissemination. Some of the upcoming practices, open peer review systems, transparent research data practices, and finally leveraging the advancements in digital technologies in publishing can be effective in creating efficient, transparent and cost-effective publishing systems. Encouraged by these recent developments, we have explored the possibilities of launching a digital publishing platform in India. We have analysed the existing open-source technologies like Open Journal System (OJS) and compared them with proprietary models like Editorial Manager to understand the gaps in both and explored avenues to conceive a cost-effective digital publishing platform. We hope that the open-access digital publishing platform will help the Indian journals upgrade their publishing systems up to the international standard, if not better, and help researchers explore a non-commercial avenue to publish open access articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our motivation for writing this editorial is to alert the academic community about the risks of predatory publishing in Biology. By piggy-backing on the open access (OA) movement and taking advantage of the “publish or perish” culture in a system that prioritises quantity over quality, predatory publishing has grown exponentially in recent years and spread across all areas of knowledge. Thousands of predatory journals and books have emerged and (provided a fee is paid) they publish scientific papers and chapters without submitting them to rigorous peer review. Now there are even predatory meetings, which promise to accept talks and publish complete works for a fee, also without reviewing them properly. These profit-making machines can damage both academia and society, putting at risk the quality of science and public trust in it, the well-being of the population, the conservation of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change. We show the modus operandi behind invitations to contribute to predatory journals, books and meetings and suggest ways to separate the wheat from the chaff. Finally, we discuss the need to create regulatory agencies that perform a careful and systematic evaluation of the activities carried out by publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Open Access movement in scientific communication challenges many of the established norms upon which the scientific communication system and its evaluative model are based. If the goal is to promote a sustainable and equitable scientific system, we must move away from partisan and biased debates and address the challenges that this new scenario presents for the entire scientific communication process. In this article, we raise some of these challenges and call for a more constructive, global, and longterm debate, rather than addressing specific and superficial issues of Open Access through patchwork solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growth of open access (OA) has been reflected through the use of OA research by the news media, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic spurred more researchers to share preprints in open repositories. However, little is known about what journalists, particularly science journalists, actually know of and think about OA research as it pertains to their work. This study seeks to help answer these questions by surveying science journalists working in the United States. Results show a broad awareness of OA and related concepts. They also show that a majority of respondents are willing to use Gold OA and Hybrid OA scholarly articles as sources, although they expressed more hesitancy in using Green OA articles, especially when they are preprints. Respondents showed awareness of the term "predatory publishers," and a majority expressed concern about them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Improving access to information for health professionals and researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is under-prioritized. This study examines publication policies that affect authors and readers from LMICs. Methods: We used the SHERPA RoMEO database and publicly available publishing protocols to evaluate open access (OA) policies, article processing charges (APCs), subscription costs, and availability of health literature relevant to authors and readers in LMICs. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies with percentages. Continuous variables were reported with median and interquartile range (IQR). Hypothesis testing procedures were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Wilcoxon rank sum exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: A total of 55 journals were included; 6 (11%) were Gold OA (access to readers and large charge for authors), 2 (3.6%) were subscription (charge for readers and small/no charge for authors), 4 (7.3%) were delayed OA (reader access with no charge after embargo), and 43 (78%) were hybrid (author's choice). There was no significant difference between median APC for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($4,850 [$3,500–$8,900] vs. $4,592 [$3,500–$5,000] vs. $3,550 [$3,200–$3,860]; p = 0.054). The median US individual subscription costs (USD/Year) were significantly different for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($259 [$209–$282] vs. $365 [$212–$744] vs. $455 [$365–$573]; p = 0.038), and similar for international readers. A total of seventeen journals (42%) had a subscription price that was higher for international readers than for US readers. Conclusions: Most journals offer hybrid access services. Authors may be forced to choose between high cost with greater reach through OA and low cost with less reach publishing under the subscription model under current policies. International readers face higher costs. Such hindrances may be mitigated by a greater awareness and liberal utilization of OA policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Navigating predatory publishers as an educator, course developer, author, and/or editor can be frustrating and sometimes complex. This article offers how to recognize, avoid, and check if one is being targeted directly or indirectly by predatory publishers. The authors share a literature review on the conditions of predatory publishing, interviews on how to identify predatory publishers with advice from experts Dr. Ann Cooper Albright, Dr. Matthew Henley, and Dr. Julie Mulvihill, and highlight red flags for recognizing predatory publishers in the digital age. The purpose of this article is to help establish a sense of accountability and transparency when it comes to dance research and publications. This article aims to demystify the publishing process by exploring the dance field's susceptibility to predatory publishers, offering warning signs of dubious practices, and proposing next steps to an academic world traversing dance and the digital space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This paper aims to address the issue of predatory publishing, sensu lato. To achieve this, we offer our perspectives, starting initially with some background surrounding the birth of the concept, even though the phenomenon may have already existed long before the popularization of the term "predatory publishing". The issue of predation or "predatory" behavior in academic publishing is no longer limited to open access (OA). Many of the mainstream publishers that were exclusively subscription-based are now evolving towards a state of complete OA. Academics seeking reliable sources of journals to publish their work tend to rely on a journal's metrics such as citations and indexing, and on whether it is blacklisted or whitelisted. Jeffrey Beall raised awareness of the risks of "predatory" OA publishing, and his blacklists of "predatory" OA journals and publishers began to be used for official purposes to distinguish valid from perceived invalid publishing venues. We initially reflect on why we believe the blacklists created by Beall were flawed, primarily due to the weak set of criteria confusing non-predatory with true predatory journals leading to false positives and missing out on blacklisting true predatory journals due to false negatives. Historically, most critiques of "predatory publishing" have relied excessively on Beall's blacklists to base their assumptions and conclusions but there is a need to look beyond these. There are currently a number of blacklists and whitelists circulating in academia, but they all have imperfections, such as the resurrected Beall blacklists, Crawford's OA gray list based on Beall's lists, Cabell's new blacklist with about 11,000 journals, the DOAJ with about 11,700 OA journals, and UGC, with over 32,600 journals prior to its recent (May 2018) purge of 4305 journals. The reader is led into a discussion about blacklists' lack of reliability, using the scientific framework of conducting research to assess whether a journal could be predatory at the pre- and post-study levels. We close our discussion by offering arguments why we believe blacklists are academically invalid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review underpins the integrity of the scientific archive and has done so for over 350 years. Over the past ten years or so, this integrity has come under pressure due to the introduction of predatory publishers and journals. Papers in predatory journals have, typically, not gone through robust peer review, if any at all. If these papers enter the scientific archive, its integrity will deteriorate. Moreover, legitimate journals will cite papers from predatory journals, which further dilutes the integrity of the scientific archive. The scholarly community has struggled to address the problems brought about by predatory publishers and journals. In this paper, we propose an approach, which draws on the fine art world. They use the concept of a catalogue raisonné to list all the validated work by a given artist and, by extension, identify fakes. A scholarly version will have some differences to the art discipline, but the central idea is the same. A publisher is analyzed, through a peer reviewed paper. This catalogue can be used by authors, and other stakeholders (e.g. librarians, promotion panels and hiring committees), to make more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors‐in‐chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs. These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a “predatory publisher.” The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered “predatory.” Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. Conclusion The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

Predatory publishers, also known as counterfeit, deceptive, or fraudulent, are organisations that exploit the open-access scholarly model by charging hefty article processing charges (APCs), often without the scientific rigour and ethical processes offered by legitimate journals. Their rising prevalence is of concern to the scientific community, as the consequences of falling victim to them can negatively impact academic integrity and reputation, and render an author's work worthless and untrustworthy. Common characteristics include inappropriate marketing and misrepresentation of services by targeting individuals with solicitation emails, inadequate peer-review processes, lack of editorial services and transparency about APCs, and false claims about citation metrics and indexing that cannot be verified. Given the infiltration of predatory publishers, authors are advised to proceed with caution when receiving solicitation emails and if in doubt, to follow the Think, Check, Submit checklist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 2009 and 2012, Jeffrey Beall analyzed 18 publishers, which were publishing 1328 journals. He classified all but one of the publishers as predatory. In this paper we look again at these publishers to see what has changed since that initial analysis. We focus on the same 18 publishers so that we have a direct comparison with Beall's original analysis. One publisher has been acquired by Sage (the publisher no longer exists) and another has been acquired by Taylor & Francis (the publisher still retains its identity). Three of the publishers can no longer be found and, of the thirteen that remain, they now publish 1650 journals, an increase of 24.25% over the 1328 journals being published when Beall carried out his analysis. Other ways of carrying out this analysis, could put this increase as high as 50.14%. The increase in the number of journals being published, by fewer publishers, suggests that the problem of predatory publishing is getting worse, although this may be largely due to mega-predatory publishers which have dramatically increased the number of journals they now publish, when compared to ten years ago. Unlike Beall, rather than classifying the publishers as predatory (or not), we classify them into four categories, using data which is publicly available, rather than making a subjective decision. Two publishers are classified as category 1 (the most reputable). One journal is in category 2, four in category 3 and six in category 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of predatory publishing and ways to combat it is garnering considerable attention in many parts of the developed world, where academic librarians are emerging as leaders in this regard. However, less is known about how this phenomenon is playing out in developing regions, including Spanish-speaking Latin America. This study presents the results of a survey of 104 academic librarians in this region, along with follow-up interviews with seven respondents. The findings reveal that scholarly publishing literacy in general, and predatory publishing in particular, currently has low visibility in this part of the world, although there is growing recognition of and increasing concern about the issue. Although there is some debate about whether scholarly publishing literacy should be the sole responsibility of the library, many participants agree that the library has a role to play. Moreover, while most of the librarians who participated perceive that they have a solid knowledge of open access, they are less confident in their understanding of predatory practices and are seeking to increase their skills and knowledge in this regard to better support researchers at their institutions. To address this shortcoming, academic librarians in the region have expressed an interest in receiving training and in participating in international collaborations with other libraries that have already developed resources or programming in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory." Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. Conclusion The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the number of citations received by open access articles versus subscription access articles in subscription journals in the Otolaryngology literature. Methods: Using the Dimensions research database, we examined articles indexed to PubMed with at least 5 citations published in 2018. Articles were included from Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, and American Journal of Otolaryngology. Multivariate Poisson regression modeling was used to adjust for journal, article type, and topic. Practice guidelines, position statements, or retractions were excluded as potential outliers. Results: 137 open access articles and 337 subscription access articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, with a median citation number of 8 (IQR 6-11). The most common article type was original investigation (82.5%), and the most common study topic was head and neck (28.9%). Open access articles had a higher median number of citations at 9 (IQR 6-13) when compared to subscription access articles at 7 (IQR 6-10) (P =.032). Open access status was significantly associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles when adjusting for journal, article type, and topic (β =.272, CI 0.194-0.500, P <.001). Conclusions: Although comprising a minority of articles examined in this study of subscription journals, open access articles were associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles. Open access publishing may facilitate the spread of novel findings in Otolaryngology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall purposes of this study are to identify actions taken to counter predatory publishing practices as well as to propose an ICT-based model to detect such practices. The need to raise quantitative performance metrics to support career goals has created immense pressure on researchers to publish in the literature as frequently as possible. This “publish or perish” syndrome appears to be fueling a rise in scholarly journals and conferences that provide quicker and easier routes to publication. However, such avenues sometimes involve questionable academic practices with important ethical ramifications. One notable example is the proliferation of predatory publishing, including predatory journals and fake conferences. The widening impact of such activities is beginning to prompt academic societies, publishers, and institutions to take measures. This paper discusses the issues on predatory publishing practices, and some of the actions taken by various stakeholders to address these practices. In order to build a transparent and sustainable scholarly publishing ecosystem, this study highlights multidimensional and specific solutions, including reforms to research ethics codes, research management rules, and legal protection from exploitative practices. This paper proposes an ICTbased cooperative model for monitoring of predatory publishers as a potential solution to create a sustainable and transparent infrastructure for a scholarly publication system guarding against misconduct in publishing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing is an increasingly difficult challenge to ignore because it threatens the integrity of research literature and scholarship. Still, this scholarly area is largely overlooked in journalism and media communications (J&MC) literature. This case study examines two J&MC journals from companies listed as possibly predatory by analyzing the experiences of scholars purportedly affiliated with them. Using a survey and interviews, the analysis suggests that these journals used deceptive and unethical tactics to recruit scholars as ostensible editorial board members and reviewers. Some scholars were listed without their consent or knowledge, and others asked unsuccessfully to be removed from the journals' posted list of editorial board members and/or reviewers. However, some say they find their affiliation rewarding intellectually, for their careers, and for the discipline. The findings have practical implications for J&MC scholarship, especially for developing country academics with insufficient English-language proficiency and who face publish-or-perish pressures from their universities and government higher education ministries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing journals offer important content on new practices and approaches to care. Unfortunately, predatory journals that use unsavory publication practices have emerged. This article shares guidance to help nurses effectively appraise information and their sources, distinguish predatory from legitimate journals, and conduct due diligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is intended to highlight the issue of predatory journals and how they have been used to degrade the open-access journals to be perceived as predatory ones. Since many of the predatory journals are available for readers free of cost over the internet (which is among one of the many features of open-access journals/publications), the international wave of the scientific community against predatory journals stigmatized and victimized the entire open-access model of scientific publication to be perceived as substandard quality. This article critically analyzes the definitions of predatory journals and identified key characteristics of predatory journals. It is observed that lack of peer-review and charging high Article Processing Charges (APC) from authors are the two most common features of predatory journals, whereas open-access journals strictly adhere to peer-review criteria and have a clear guideline and information about the article processing fee. Knowingly or unknowingly, several authors mentioned that predatory journals are mostly open access, an overgeneralization of the author pay model upon which open access lies. Peer-review is an essential component of open access journals but not predatory journals; thus, considering predatory journals under the broad notion of open-access model of publication is unfair, stigmatizing and victimizing the open-access journals and keeping them at risk of degradation. Associating open-access journals with predatory ones is a nuisance as both have different aims, modus-operandi, and quality concerns. Therefore, there is a dire need to make policies to discourage predatory practices without victimizing the noble idea of open-access journals/publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of published literature can change at any time in its history following publication, although existing structures in academic publishing for recording these changes, despite the existence of a number of robust tools—such as the digital object identifier (DOI)—appear to be insufficiently robust, or used too inconsistently or inefficiently, to deal with multiple corrections. In this article, an information storage method and corrective measure or tool is proposed—the 'publication history'—that considers the full history and background of an article's publication. The 'publication history' is adjusted to record changes to an article over time, and is thus a 'live' document, always open to modification and updating. The 'publication history' has the potential to accommodate, in a single document (in both PDF and HTML format), information about pre-publication (e.g., preprints) and post-publication events, including submission, resubmission, acceptance date, handling editors, peer-review format, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. The 'publication history' employs two DOIs, one for the article and one for any and all edits, to document these changes. Our proposal offers one possible solution for fortifying the integrity of peer review and the publication process pre- and post–peer review. The doubl DOI based 'publication history' can be applied to any document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicine is an ever-changing science, and the pace of this change has been rapid in recent years. A researcher in an academic institution is now obliged to publish their research work for career advancement with recognition, access to grants, fellowships, etc., as secondary objectives. Besides, it is paramount for anyone engaging in active clinical practice to remain up to date with recent advances in the field. Hence, it is the author's responsibility to publish authentic data with integrity as it helps modulate opinions on a wide platform globally in today's digital age. While the pressure to publish is immense, it is vital to have a system of checks and balances before publishing and adhere to good research practices because a wrong step may bring lasting discredit to the authors. This article attempts to provide an overview for novice researchers regarding how to select an appropriate journal for publication, evaluate it in view of its reach and relevance, and how to avoid predatory journals. The article also briefly outlines the various databases available, peer-review process, important journal metrics such as impact factor and indexing, and the concept of open access in a simple language to enable young authors to select the best journal for publishing their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One way of exposing predatory journals is to submit a spoof article to see if it gets accepted. We investigate one journal, looking at how it has performed since a spoof paper it accepted came to light. We find that it has published almost 20% more papers following the acceptance of the spoof paper. The journal has a new web site, which appears to show that it did not publish its first paper until 2018. However, there is an old web site that lists 321 papers dating back to 2012. The editors said that this is due to a new workflow system, which meant that previously published papers could not be listed on the new web site. Moreover, the number of papers could be not accommodated, as a high configuration server would be required to provide a responsive web site. We found some plagiarism, which looks quite serious. We conclude that the spoof paper had little effect on the journal, which continues to operate, seven years after the spoof paper was accepted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advance of information technology has led to the significant diversification of scholarly publishing. Over the past decade, the popularity of open access in scholarly publishing has led to an unintended rise in the number of predatory journals and the growth in predatory open access (POA) publishing practices. The main goal of POA publishing is to profit from article processing charges, and thus little or no attention is given to proper peer review or to editorial / publishing standards. Most articles published in predatory journals are tainted by examples of academic ethics violations such as falsification, deception, and fraud. Moreover, the risk of citation contamination is high, as articles published in POA publications may be cited and referenced in the legitimate scientific literature, with consequences including confounding subsequent research, negatively influencing public policies, and hindering social progress and public health. However, most nurses in Taiwan remain unfamiliar with this issue. This article provides a brief review of the open access movement and insights regarding how to assess the credentials of journals and publishers before submitting manuscripts to avoid predatory journals, promote academic integrity, and contribute to the sustainable development of the nursing profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper provides a critical review of the predatory journals phenomenon, which affects the field of scholarly communication in the Open Access era. It offers an analytical account of the debates, the research being done and the methodologies used, and discusses the multidimensional definition of predatory journals and of the new market for lists of 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' journals. The article identifies the main ethical and scientific issues that predatory journals raise in the Open Access publishing era and reports on the contexts that lead researchers, both young and senior, to publish in these outlets. By linking predatory journals to the field of scholarly communication, the article highlights the main issues and establishes them as research topics. The article concludes with research avenues that contribute to the analysis of mutation in digital scholarly communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The sudden increase of questionable or predatory journals has raised concerns in the medical literature. The aims of this study were to identify potentially legitimate and questionable trauma journals and to assess the applicability of criteria previously proposed in the literature to distinguish them.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify journals using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Presumed legitimate journals were identified using nine databases (Directory of Open Access Journals, PubMed, Web of Science, etc.). Presumed questionable journals were identified using Google Search/Scholar, emails received and former Beall's lists. Scientific active English journals whose titles contained the words injury or trauma were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected journals and extracted information from their websites. Criteria to differentiate journals status were based on two lists proposed by Shamseer et al. (2017; salient characteristics) and Wicherts (2016; transparency of peer review's items) and treated as dichotomous variables. Applicability of criteria to distinguish journal status was assessed using Fisher's exact test.Results: Following duplicate removal, 54 potentially legitimate and 30 potentially questionable active English journals were included. Among 13 salient characteristics, seven were found to distinguish potentially legitimate from potentially questionable trauma journals: the presence of fuzzy images or spelling and grammar errors on the website, homepages targeting authors, request to submit manuscripts by email, the absence of a retraction policy, promise of rapid publication and copyright claims. However, only 3/14 of Wicherts' items were associated with journal status: journal's website highlights issues of publication ethics, the journal has clear guidelines concerning sharing and availability of research data, and journal allows authors to indicate names of (non-) desired reviewers.Conclusions: Eighty-four active English trauma journals were identified. Among 27 criteria, 10 were found to determine trauma journals status related to their scientific legitimacy. Though no single criteria is foolproof, these criteria may be helpful to authors, readers, and reviewers when assessing potential legitimacy of scientific trauma journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews appraise and synthesize the results from a body of literature. In healthcare, systematic reviews are also used to develop clinical practice guidelines. An increasingly common concern among systematic reviews is that they may unknowingly capture studies published in "predatory" journals and that these studies will be included in summary estimates and impact results, guidelines, and ultimately, clinical care. Findings: There is currently no agreed-upon guidance that exists for how best to manage articles from predatory journals that meet the inclusion criteria for a systematic review. We describe a set of actions that authors of systematic reviews can consider when handling articles published in predatory journals: (1) detail methods for addressing predatory journal articles a priori in a study protocol, (2) determine whether included studies are published in open access journals and if they are listed in the directory of open access journals, and (3) conduct a sensitivity analysis with predatory papers excluded from the synthesis. Conclusion: Encountering eligible articles published in presumed predatory journals when conducting a review is an increasingly common threat. Developing appropriate methods to account for eligible research published in predatory journals is needed to decrease the potential negative impact of predatory journals on healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the volume of scholarly literature worldwide has increased significantly, and open-access publishing has become commonplace. These changes are even more dominant in South Korea. Comparing the periods of 1981-2000 and 2001-2020, the number of medical articles produced in Korea increased by 16.8 times on the Web of Science platform (13,223 to 222,771 papers). Before 1990, almost no open-access articles were produced in South Korea, but in the last 10 years open-access publications came to account for almost 40% of all South Korean publications on Web of Science. Along with the expansion of literature and the development of open-access publishing, predatory journals that seek profit without conducting quality assurance have appeared and undermined the academic corpus. In this rapidly changing environment, medical researchers have begun contemplating publication standards. In this article, recent trends in academic publishing are examined from international and South Korean perspectives, and the significance of open-access publishing and recent changes are discussed. Practical methods that can be used to select legitimate publishers, including open-access journals, and identify predatory journals are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts. METHODOLOGY The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019. The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing. RESULTS Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output. OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications. DISCUSSION More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models. Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models. CONCLUSION Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing. However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual review of the literature pertaining to predatory publishing, so as to derive cornerstone themes for an ongoing research agenda to eliminate predatory publishing. Findings identify four key themes as important underpinnings of such a research agenda. The first relates to the influences and consequences of Open-Access publishing on predatory journals. The second concerns the need to maintain academic standards in the wake of predatory journals. The third highlights the response of developing countries to predatory journals, and the fourth relates to the need to ensure predatory journals are restrained. Results suggest a need for a more holistic approach to predatory publishing research that reduces redundancy and links to overarching issues of scientific rigour and credibility. The conceptual synthesis provided here extends current literature on predatory publishing, seeking to offer useful insights into how to ensure the effectiveness of an ongoing research agenda that can stay ahead of changes in the nature and boundaries of the predatory publishing phenomenon itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-publication peer review (PPPR) relies on signed or anonymous/pseudonymous comments, and is a fundamental process that complements the weakness of traditional peer review that were not discussed by Trotter (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.10.009). Yet, should anonymous or pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged if their identities cannot be confirmed? This discussion abridges some of the issues underlining the fundamentals of PPPR, supplementing the gaps not covered by Trotter, and why there are ethical complexities involved with citing anonymous or pseudonymous entities. Based on COPE and ICMJE ethical guidelines, the argument against citing or acknowledging anonymous or pseudonymous entities is strong, because doing so would likely infringe upon one or more of their stated ethical regulations. Currently, no clearly stated regulations exist pertaining to this issue, so this discussion provides a spring-board for policy makers and academics to initiate a debate, and ultimately establish a clear set of publishing ethics guidelines pertaining to the acknowledgement of anonymous or pseudonymous entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academics and scholars need to publish their research results. In addition, they are required to publish scientific papers to prove their research commitment and to achieve certain academic titles in higher education institutions. Globally, there are many scientific journals of well-known publishing houses/universities, which offer opportunities to publish scientific work. One of the recent topics in academic circles is the increasing number of invitations to publish articles via quick procedures, without going through the adequate review process. This phenomenon is threatening academic integrity, as these publishers/journals aim at financial benefits and not contributing to scientific development and progress. There is a gap in the knowledge of the scientific researchers regarding the journal selection to publish their work. Some of them are still unintentionally publishing in such journals, mainly as a lack of information about them. The main purpose of this study is awarenessraising, warning, and guidance of scientific researchers, particularly young researchers by providing information on how to avoid submitting manuscripts in these journals. To achieve this, we have consulted the recent literature and practices of different countries, summarized the most used tools/methods to identify predatory publishers and journals, and lastly, we have developed a guiding algorithm for evaluating them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review.Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types.Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)).Conclusion: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly communication in science, technology, and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests-publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing, as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management, and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal, and ethical dilemmas that require solutions, while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors' perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exponential growth of open access publishing has sadly encouraged the emergence of numerous predatory publishers and journals harming the scientific community and threatening scholarly communication. While the issue has received some attention from the academic community in medical and applied sciences, much less work has been done within the realm of social sciences. Specifically, despite the gravity of predatory publishing as unethical practice and its negative effect on the progress and quality of tourism and hospitality research, empirical investigation on the topic remains very limited. The present study used a mixed method design combining data from 612 articles published in 13 potential tourism and hospitality predatory journals with data from two surveys drawing on authors' experiences as well as tourism and hospitality most prolific scholars' perceptions. The findings reveal that predatory journals are succeeding in targeting a wide range of researchers regardless of their career experience from both developed and developing countries. Lack of awareness of predatory journals, pressure for publication, and high rejection rates in legitimate journals were found to be the key motivations for publishing in predatory journals. Raising awareness of predatory journals and reconsidering tenure and promotion requirements were suggested as the best response strategies to curb predatory publishing. The study offers several theoretical and practical implications and proposes avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers in developing countries are more likely to publish in predatory journals (Xia et al., 2015). This study investigates the understanding that research scientists in Ghana, a developing country, have about predatory journals and their publishing practices. Using a mixed methods approach, research scientists within one cluster of research organizations in Ghana were asked about their awareness of the characteristics of predatory journals, based on their own experience as a researcher. Their publications were also examined. The results indicate that most of the research scientists in this study are aware of predatory journals and are often solicited by them, but are less aware of tools they can use to determine the quality of a particular publication. In addition, 12% of the articles published that make up 24% of the unique journals in which these researchers published could be considered "predatory". The findings of this research are significant because they indicate that research scientists may have more awareness of predatory journals than is expected, but that they may lack the training or tools necessary for deciding whether or not a journal is legitimate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Predatory publishing” refers to conditions under which gold open-access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed.

Recent disgracing reports are warning the scientific communities to think more about the solutions to win the battle against predatory journals and publishers. Current integrity and accuracy in science is a result of decades of honest works and publications which are an asset, now everyone as stakeholders of science should feel the responsibility to sustain its high privileged level. The ethical sides of this duty need careful considerations by science stakeholders worldwide. Boosting the weak resume, getting higher and faster promotion and permanent jobs in academia cannot figure out as reasonable excuses to publish unethically. Hereby, I suggest a practical roadmap based on certain strategies which are recommendable for the scientific community. This paper describes author‘s perspective about predatory journals and how we can stop them. Moreover, following the appearance of the predatory journal, this is a first article discussing root cause analysis on this global scientific problem. Last but not least, predatory journals are not too bad! Since they can be considered as a critical discriminatory tool to distinguish between individuals who work truly standard and who pretend to work standard.