Search

While library professionals working in academic contexts are likely to have knowledge of 'predatory' journals and related implications for guiding student information seeking, school and public library professionals may be less familiar with this phenomenon. This article draws on a broad body of research to explore the factors that enable predatory journals to thrive, some of which arise from inequities in current 'legitimate' academic publishing practices. While this article highlights the complexities involved when guiding students and clients to make robust information seeking choices in relation to predatory journals, some key implications for professional practice emerge from the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals and conferences are an emerging problem in scientific literature as they have financial motives, without guaranteeing scientific quality and exposure. The main objective of the ASGLOS project is to investigate the predatory e‐email characteristics, management, and possible consequences and to analyse the extent of the current problem at each academic level. To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. A total of 978 responses were analysed from 58 countries around the world. A total of 64.8% of participants indicated the need for 3 or fewer emails to acquire a criticality view in distinguishing a real invitation from a spam, while 11.5% still have doubt regardless of how many emails they get. The AGLOS Study clearly highlights the problem of academic e‐mail spam by predatory journals and conferences. Our findings signify the importance of providing academic career‐oriented advice and organising training sessions to increase awareness of predatory publishing for those conducting scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite increasing incidence of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth and associated injury, it is unclear which techniques are most effective for prevention and management. A high quality evidence review in accordance with international reporting standards is currently lacking. To address this gap, we aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize studies comparing techniques to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth prior to or at full cervical dilatation. Material and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase and Cochrane databases up to 1 January 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD420212750016). Included were randomized controlled trials (any size) and non‐randomized comparative studies (n ≥ 30 in each arm) comparing techniques or adjunctive measures to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth. Following screening and data extraction, we assessed risk of bias for individual studies using RoB2 and ROBINS‐I, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We synthesized data using meta‐analysis where appropriate, including sensitivity analyses excluding data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. Results: We identified 24 eligible studies (11 randomized and 13 non‐randomized) including 3558 women, that compared vaginal disimpaction, reverse breech extraction, the Patwardhan method and/or the Fetal Pillow®. GRADE certainty of evidence was low or very low for all 96 outcomes across seven reported comparisons. Pooled analysis mostly showed no or equivocal differences in outcomes across comparisons of techniques. Although some maternal outcomes suggested differences between techniques (eg risk ratio of 3.41 [95% CI: 2.50–4.66] for uterine incision extension with vaginal disimpaction vs. reverse breech extraction), these were based on unreliable pooled estimates given very low GRADE certainty and, in some cases, additional risk of bias introduced by data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. Conclusions: The current weaknesses in the evidence base mean that no firm recommendations can be made about the superiority of any one impacted fetal head technique over another, indicating that high quality training is needed across the range of techniques. Future studies to improve the evidence base are urgently required, using a standard definition of impacted fetal head, agreed maternal and neonatal outcome sets for impacted fetal head, and internationally recommended reporting standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the issue of predatory journals, which prioritize profit over quality scholarship and compromise the integrity of scientific discourse. It highlights a symposium held at Semmelweis University, where editors in chief from top journals discussed topics such as detecting publication fraud, combating paper mills, and the importance of robust submission and review processes. The participants emphasized the need for collaboration and community-building to uphold scientific integrity. They also discussed the role of AI and open science in improving publication standards. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of non-predatory journals working together to combat unethical publications and maintain high standards in scientific research. [Extracted from the article]

Scholarly publishing is considered one of the most frustrating endeavors among academicians. For learners, it symbolizes the culmination of studies, whereas for academicians, it signifies promotion and acknowledgment. This paper highlights and discusses some of the breakthroughs and hindrances scholars, especially doctorate students, undergo in their scholarly pursuits. It traverses the intricate journey of scholarly publishing, exploring the myriad frustrations students face along this intellectual path. The paper concludes by providing insights and recommendations that can contribute to a more equitable and sustainable academic publishing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sets out to detail the deceptive practice of including stock characters in the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers. Stock characters are defined by the author as those that currently (2023) appear 20 or more times on these editorial boards. Predatory publishers are in turn defined by the author as open access publishers in violation of three or more out of eight egregiously 'fatal' criteria such as identity theft and token (or no) peer review. Stock characters (and stolen academic names and affiliations in general) are included in editorial boards to give them an unwarranted appearance of quality and excellence. Ninety‐six of these stock characters were identified, with their numbers of board memberships ranging from 20 to 503 in the current year (2023). Some were cases of total identity theft, some partial identity theft, and some willing compliance. Academics in the latter category could also have records of publications with the predatory publishers in question. Universities typically warn staff and postgraduate students about the dangers of engaging with predatory publishers, but they can be unresponsive or otherwise negative when alerted to instances of such engagements involving their staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research publication is an important aspect of academic life as it aids in career progression. A high volume of publications by Indian authors is found in questionable journals. In 2020, the National Medical Commission (NMC) of India modified the list of accepted bibliographic databases, with one significant change being the exclusion of Index Copernicus. Our research question focused on whether this change had any impact on the publication patterns in questionable journals. Aim: This study aimed to observe the number of publications in the questionable journal before and after the change in the accepted database by the NMC. Methods: We prepared a final list of 12 questionable journals using extensive criteria to classify a journal as questionable. The journal issues from 2015 to 2022 were scrutinized to determine the number of original research articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, editorials, and letters to the editor. Results: There was a gradual increase in the percentage of publications from 2015 to 2018, followed by a plateau that lasted for three years (2018-2020). However, there was a sudden decrease in publication numbers in 2021, reaching its lowest point in 2022 (χ2 [7] = 658.2, P < 0.0001). The majority of the articles were original research articles (94.54%), while only 3.27% of publications consisted of case reports and 1.45% were review articles. It is noteworthy that none of the journals published any editorials or letters to the editor. Conclusion: A change in the accepted bibliographical database by the NMC may be one of the reasons for the decline in publications in questionable journals. It is important for stakeholders to prioritize the promotion of sound research output from medical institutions rather than solely focusing on the number of publications. In this article, we have presented a holistic approach to address this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, especially since the COVID‐19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open‐access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early‐career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early‐career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term "Predatory" alludes to the assumption that these organizations prey on academics for financial gain by charging article processing charges (APC) while failing to meet scholarly publishing standards.Predatory publishing is a growing threat to the academic society. Considering this,the University Grants Commission (UGC),India's statutory body for higher education,has responded by launching the University Grants Commission–Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (UGC-CARE) list,which attempts to promote research quality,integration,and publication ethics.An online survey was undertaken to determine the perception and awareness of North Eastern Hill University's researchers concerning predatory journals.A total of 160 respondents were recorded.The survey reveals that while the majority of participants (58.75%) were aware of predatory publications, a significant portion (41.25%) were not.It was found that a journal's listing in UGC-CARE list is the most crucial factor in submitting an original manuscript for publication.Researchers,aware of the negative consequences of publishing in piracy-related publications,prefer not to submit their scientific work to such publishers as it risk tarnishing their reputation.As a result,research findings emphasize the necessity for awareness initiatives to educate researchers about predatory publications early in their academic careers.Research initiatives like the UGC-CARE list should be encouraged to minimize predatory publishing; promote quality and transparency in research. Abbreviation: NEHU- North Eastern Hill University, UGC- University Grants Commission, APC- Article Processing Charge, UGC-CARE- University Grants Commission - Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics, DOAJ- Directory of Open Access Journals, DOI - Digital Object Identifiers, API- Academic Performance Indicator [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 article explores the issue of predatory journals in Sudan's pediatric academic community. It highlights the lack of awareness and knowledge about predatory publishing among Sudanese pediatricians and discusses the potential negative consequences of publishing in these journals. The article also examines the promotion policies in Sudanese universities and their stance on predatory publishing. The findings suggest a need for increased awareness and regulation to address this issue. The study recommends creating more awareness about predatory publishing and implementing a national framework for faculty promotion regulations that explicitly prohibit publishing in predatory journals. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. [Extracted from the article]

Key points: The expansion of open access entails a responsibility for supporting this public access with a guide to why, in an 'Age of Misinformation', research may be trustworthy.Such a guide can also provide a check on predatory journals, a fear of which may be unduly limiting researchers tapping into the expanding global scale of research activity.Journal publishing platforms offer opportunities for automating the gathering and presenting of relevant data for assessing journal adherence to scholarly standards.Industry organizations, such as ORCID, Crossref, and DOAJ, offer trust and verification networks that can be employed to further strengthen scholarly publishing integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent article suggested that authors should avoid publishing with OMICS, as they have been producing fake articles. Moreover, other publishers often conceal their association with OMICS as the scholarly community is wary of OMICS after a US court fined them US$50.1 million for deceptive practices. In addition to the 15 publishers previously mentioned (which included OMICS), another five have been identified. Evidence is presented for these ninteen publishers to show their relationship with OMICS. This is the first time that such an evidence base has been presented in a peer-reviewed article. Several small case studies are also presented to demonstrate that some of the publishers are not operating in ways that we would expect of high-quality publishers, noting that further investigation would be useful. Supplementary files are provided, providing details of the web pages that have been archived, as well as other data collected as part of this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between August 2022 and March 2023, the names and affiliations of 2183 American academics were found on the editorial boards of journals owned by nineteen predatory publishers. A survey email went out to 905 of them, and 195 replies were received. Twenty-six replies were uninformative. Sixty-five respondents confirmed that they served knowingly and willingly, ninety-one reported that their names were being used without their knowledge, and thirteen said that their names were being used despite requests to have them removed. Based on these results, a minimum estimate of the number of academics serving on the editorial boards of corrupt publishers runs into the tens of thousands, while the maximum exceeds ninety thousand. The former estimate uses very stringent criteria to define a predatory publisher, excluding all moderate, minor, and doubtful cases. This situation should be intolerable. The academic community is urged to take legal action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a widespread increase in research on the topic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in both predatory and non-predatory journals. It is important to understand the origin, content, funding, and reach of predatory articles to gauge the detrimental effects of such articles. In this study, the authors, therefore, investigated 210 randomly selected predatory articles with COVID-19-based research published online between February 2020 and February 2021 in journals included in Cabells' Predatory Reports. Their research shows that although India is still among the major contributors of articles published in predatory journals, predatory publishing should no longer be regarded as only a problem in the developing world. The authors also found funded research and articles reporting dangerous treatments with no clinical trials and small sample sizes with unconvincing or misleading scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nowadays, many studies discuss scholarly publishing and associated challenges, but the problem of hijacked journals has been neglected. Hijacked journals are cloned websites that mimic original journals but are managed by cybercriminals. The present study uses a topic modeling approach to analyze published papers in hijacked versions of medical journals. Methods: A total of 3384 papers were downloaded from 21 hijacked journals in the medical domain and analyzed by topic modeling algorithm. Results: Results indicate that hijacked versions of medical journals are published in most fields of the medical domain and typically respect the primary domain of the original journal. Conclusion: The academic world is faced with the third-generation of hijacked journals, and their detection may be more complex than common ones. The usage of artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool to deal with the phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Religación: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades is the property of Religacion: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 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.)

The Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors (APAME) issued the Sydney declaration on predatory or pseudo journals and publishers at their annual meeting in 2024. Predatory journals are defined as those that charge publication fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. These journals can have a negative impact on clinical practice, health, and careers. The declaration calls for member states, governments, and stakeholders to implement procedures for identifying and dealing with predatory journals and publishers. It also emphasizes the commitment of APAME to educate and empower editors, authors, and publishers to avoid engaging in predatory practices. [Extracted from the article]

Predatory publishing poses significant challenges to academic integrity and progress. It requires the involvement of academic institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers to establish robust evaluation mechanisms and promote ethical publishing practices. This study examines the effectiveness of implementing promotion policies to discourage unethical academic publishing, focusing on Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in Ghana. This study analyses 273 promotion applications submitted from January 2022 to November 2023, regardless of approval. The results show that researchers at KNUST submit relatively more publications to recommended outlets after the implementation of the new promotion guidelines. Moreover, with nine out of ten non-verified publications found to be from predatory journals, the verification process effectively discourages publication such outlets. Our study therefore confirms that the verification process can identify predatory publication outlets. Consequently, it is recommended that research institutions eliminate incentives for publishing in questionable outlets through publication criteria as part of promotion standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The document is a program schedule for the 11th Anatomy Winter Days conference, which will take place from March 7th to March 9th, 2024 in Aydın, Turkey. The conference will feature various sessions and presentations on topics such as the history of the Department of Anatomy, legislation related to competencies, laboratory conditions and competence in anatomy, accreditation processes, associate professorship criteria, and ethical violations. The program also includes poster presentations and opportunities for assessment and discussion. [Extracted from the article]

The transition to the market economy, which began in Russia more than 30 years ago, has dramatically affected the performance of the Russian academic sphere. The market transformation in the country coincided with significant changes in the global academia. Bureaucratization and obsession with performance indicators have been very welcomed by the Russian system and have been incorporated in various academic excellence programs adopted in the country. A closer look at these programs reveals that the real driving force behind the initiatives is not public spiritedness of the country's policymakers but wishes of various groups to be engaged in the rent-seeking activities of contemporary Russia. The present paper focuses on the interplay between the predatory publishing industry and the apparent encouragement of fraudulent practices by some universities in Russia. It highlights the problem of "predatory universities" and explains the evolution of such strategies in the academic sphere of the country. The Russian case allows to look at the problems of the global academia from a new angle. It should be acknowledged that the predatory publishing industry is much greater than it seems within the initial "open access" model. It is clear that the authors are very often not less predators than the publishers, and this predatory ecosystem has been significantly expanded beyond the merely publisher-author interactions. Moreover, the noticeable players in these predatory markets are universities and governments that play with the systems designed by the leading citation databases and global ranking organisations, which apparently also benefit from these arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic research writing has revolutionized the field, offering powerful tools like ChatGPT and Bard to aid researchers in content generation and idea enhancement. We explore the current state of transparency regarding generative AI use in nursing academic research journals, emphasizing the need for explicitly declaring the use of generative AI by authors in the manuscript. Out of 125 nursing studies journals, 37.6% required explicit statements about generative AI use in their authors' guidelines. No significant differences in impact factors or journal categories were found between journals with and without such requirement. A similar evaluation of medicine, general and internal journals showed a lower percentage (14.5%) including the information about generative AI usage. Declaring generative AI tool usage is crucial for maintaining the transparency and credibility in academic writing. Additionally, extending the requirement for AI usage declarations to journal reviewers can enhance the quality of peer review and combat predatory journals in the academic publishing landscape. Our study highlights the need for active participation from nursing researchers in discussions surrounding standardization of generative AI declaration in academic research writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

h-indexes, Journal Impact Factors and CiteScores are often presented as a single numeric value, without providing any context. Under such circumstances, the reader is unable to fully appreciate, or comprehend, the information being presented. By not being transparent, it also presents the opportunity for unscrupulous operators, such as predatory journals, to provide non-sensical information in the hope that the potential author will misinterpret it and submit an article in the expectation that they are submitting to a high-quality journal. Dubious metrics are also able to enter the sector, again in the hope that their metric will be read under an incorrect assumption. Following an overview of the main metrics that are commonly used, this paper suggests how these metrics should be cited. Adopting these proposals would not only provide the reader will full information but also enable bogus measures, which have proliferated in recent years, to be recognized more easily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The burgeoning landscape of scientific communication, marked by an explosive surge in published articles, journals, and specialized publishers, prompts a critical examination of prevailing assumptions. This article advocates a dispassionate and meticulous analysis to avoid policy decisions grounded in anecdotal evidence or superficial arguments. The discourse surrounding so-called predatory journals has been a focal point within the academic community, with concerns ranging from alleged lack of peer review rigor to exorbitant publication fees. While the consensus often leans towards avoiding such journals, this article challenges the prevailing narrative. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes predatory practices and underscores the importance of skeptical inquiry within our daily academic activities. The authors aim to dispel misconceptions and foster a more informed dialogue by scrutinizing APCs, impact factors, and retractions. Furthermore, the authors delve into the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, addressing the generational shifts and emerging trends that challenge traditional notions of prestige and impact. In conclusion, this article serves as a call to action for the scientific community to engage in a comprehensive and nuanced debate on the complex issues surrounding scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing has recently emerged as a menace in academia. University professors and researchers often exploit this practice for their economic gains and institutional prestige. The present study investigates such existing predatory publishing practices in Pakistani public sector universities drawing on the notion of symbolic violence. For this purpose, we analyzed 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities over the period 2017–2021. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 postgraduate students to gather their perspectives on publishing practices. The study shows that 69% of the sample papers were published in predatory journals, as identified in Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's (HEC) online journal recognition system (HJRS). Postgraduate students' insights inform the study that the students misrecognize these malpractices in academia as a problem what is referred to as "symbolic violence." Consequently, they engage in the process to increase their publications. Such publications enable both the university professors and the students to achieve the desired benefit, such as promotions, tenure, and academic degrees. We recommend that this practice must be altered at the policy level since it not only violates the HEC's standards for quality research but also damages the researchers' credibility and country's scientific reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there has been recent media attention to the issue of "fake news," misinformation and disinformation has been a lasting part of human history. This Janet Doe Lecture presents the history of fake news, how it is spread and accepted, its impact on medical and health information, and medical librarian roles in limiting its spread and promoting correct health information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research compares the performance measures reported by two bibliographic databases relevant to a set of authors who have published in predatory journals. The reliability of decision-making based on the information provided by uncontrolled bibliographic databases is examined to support rational decisions. A sample of authors who published in predatory journals was selected in order to compare each author's research performance as reported by Google Scholar (GS) and Scopus. The number of articles, citations, and h-indices were used for the comparison. Correlation analysis, polynomial regression, k-means clustering, significant tests, and simple descriptive statistics were employed to examine the data. The number of articles, citations, and h-indices correlated strongly between the two databases. However, these three measures were all significantly higher in GS than they were in Scopus. The articles published in predatory journals received less attention as compared to that received by the articles published in genuine journals. Two polynomial models of two degrees were implemented to interpolate the number of citations based on the number of articles in GS and Scopus separately. The number of articles and citations were more reliable measures in Scopus than in GS. However, the h-index was more reliable in GS. Overall, Scopus displayed higher stability than did GS. The combined behavior of the three performance measures showed some resemblance in the two databases. A study that especially focuses on the research performance of authors who published in predatory journals has not yet been compared for the different implications given for their data in uncontrolled and controlled bibliographic databases. Therefore, the findings of the current research let us evaluate such authors rationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing is the unethical and dishonest behavior of publishers who take advantage of researchers by charging them too much money and not providing good editing and peer-review services. Scholars, publishers and policymakers are seeking solutions to combat predatory publishing, which has become a major academic problem. This research paper provides a bibliometric analysis of the citation patterns and trends in the predatory publishing literature. The study analyzed the 100 top-cited papers on predatory publishing and provided insight into the types of documents, journals, authors, and countries that contributed to this field. The average citation per paper in the top 100 selected publications was 53.67. Open-access publications received a significantly higher average citation per paper than subscription-based papers. "Article" was the major type of document published, followed by "Notes," "Reviews" and "Editorials." Nature and Learned Publishing were the journals that contained the highest number of top-cited articles. J. Beall and D. Moher authored the highest number of papers, while A. Grudniewicz had the highest average citation per paper. USA and Canada were the top countries in these top-cited publications. This study will be beneficial to the all the stakeholders who may be interested in this area of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Arab can be considered as a new emergent region in the world by using advanced bibliometric methods, the development of science and technology in Unsure is explored. Purpose: This article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Arab academics of library and information science in Scopus, and reviews (12) years of Library and information science research in the Arab World affiliated with the (22) countries of the Arab League: a bibliometric study 2011-2022. As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies. Design/methodology/approach: Three metrics were chosen to analyses the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output: publications in predatory journals, publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective. Findings: Study results highlight, that: Firstly: publications of Arab academics of library and information science in predatory journals rose to (12.162 % in 2011-2013) - (39.190 in 2020-2022). Secondly: the share of publications in local journals reached the Peak of fourth period 44.595% in 2020-2022. Thirdly: though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011, but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2. Summaries: the study findings highlight, that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria. Research limitation: The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements. Practical implications: The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies. Originality/value: This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Arab academics of library and information science in Scopus & local journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Emerging as a novel cybercrime, cloned (or hijacked) journals with identical ISSNs to legitimate ones have surfaced.These cloned journals employ various tactics, and this article identifies and discusses the top five.Fraudulent journals primarily focus on print‐only publications, using parallel websites to mislead researchers.Cloned journals are using videos on their homepages to deceitfully showcase indexing in databases like Scopus or Web of Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Our policy and implementation successfully identified references from predatory publishers, which authors without hesitation agreed to remove before publication.Higher predatory reference patterns emerged among authors in low‐income countries, those with non‐English primary languages, and sole authorship.After a year of implementing our policy, the editors changed our policy and workflow to better handle references from predatory publishers cited in literature reviews and meta‐analyses.Editorial responsibility is discussed, particularly concerning support for authors from lower‐ and middle‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing 'industry'.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the issue of predatory journals, specifically focusing on the case study of the OMICS Publishing Group. The study conducted by Chérifa Boukacem aimed to understand the motivations of researchers who submitted manuscripts to predatory journals. The researchers found that some respondents were being harassed for more money by OMICS representatives, and some were even threatened physically. Predatory publishers prioritize self-interest and profit over research integrity, often taking fees without performing advertised services such as peer review. The article emphasizes the harm caused by predatory journals and the need to address this issue. It highlights that predatory publishing is a global issue that affects scientists in both low- and high-income countries, and that addressing this issue requires better training for researchers, increased funding for open access publication, and the adoption of principles that improve the evaluation of scientists. Governments also need to be vigilant in preventing predatory publishing companies from operating in their countries. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epistemic injustice and the so-called "predators" or illegitimate publishers are the challenges of Southern scholarly publishing. Even though open access (OA) publishing is revolutionary in academic publishing, increased compensation from authors in the form of author processing charges (APCs) by commercial publishers has marginalized knowledge creation in the Global South. The purpose of this study was to map the nature and scope of dental journal publishing in India. Methods: We searched databases like Scopus, WoS, DOAJ, and the UGC CARE list for dental journals published in India. Result: There are currently 35 active dental journals, which mostly belong to or are affiliated with non-profit organizations (26, 55.9%) or educational institutions (9, 25.8%). The publication of 25 journals has been outsourced to international commercial publishers, with most of these linked to non-profit organizations. About 39.8% of Indian dental journals are OA and almost half charge APCs. Around 60% of the Indian journals are indexed in Scopus, and slightly less than half (12) are included in the Web of Science (WoS). Discussion: The monopoly of international commercial publishers and the presence of APCs are the real culprits of epistemic injustice in Indian dental journal publishing. Besides, the identification of regional legitimate publishers would help demarcate the term "predatory publishing". Conclusion: The post-colonial world witnessed an emergence in Southern scholarly publishing. However, the hegemony or neoliberal exploitation of international commercial publishers and the prolonged use of "predators" in scholarly debates marginalized the knowledge produced in the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epistemic injustice and the so-called “predators” or illegitimate publishers are the challenges of Southern scholarly publishing. Even though open access (OA) publishing is revolutionary in academic publishing, increased compensation from authors in the form of author processing charges (APCs) by commercial publishers has marginalized knowledge creation in the Global South. The purpose of this study was to map the nature and scope of dental journal publishing in India. Methods: We searched databases like Scopus, WoS, DOAJ, and the UGC CARE list for dental journals published in India. Result: There are currently 35 active dental journals, which mostly belong to or are affiliated with non-profit organizations (26, 55.9%) or educational institutions (9, 25.8%). The publication of 25 journals has been outsourced to international commercial publishers, with most of these linked to non-profit organizations. About 39.8% of Indian dental journals are OA and almost half charge APCs. Around 60% of the Indian journals are indexed in Scopus, and slightly less than half (12) are included in the Web of Science (WoS). Discussion: The monopoly of international commercial publishers and the presence of APCs are the real culprits of epistemic injustice in Indian dental journal publishing. Besides, the identification of regional legitimate publishers would help demarcate the term “predatory publishing”. Conclusion: The post-colonial world witnessed an emergence in Southern scholarly publishing. However, the hegemony or neoliberal exploitation of international commercial publishers and the prolonged use of “predators” in scholarly debates marginalized the knowledge produced in the Global South.

The arena of research is at an expanding pace. Due to the rise in number of researches, the acceptance rate for publication has been decreasing. This creates a lot of manuscript rejections and the re- searchers tends to submit their work in less known journals or publishers who offer quick publishing with a nominal publication cost. Such publishers may be predatory and can lead to loss of the re- search in a scientific cloud black hole, where the research is not acknowledged or identified and hence deemed to be of null value. It is therefore indispensable that every researcher, academician and educator to be aware of and be vigilant of such journals/publishers for individual work publication, peer publications or supervised publications or faculty promotions. The present review highlights important points for identification of predatory journals/publishers, guidance to avoid publishing in such journals and how to get research published in a good journal.

The Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery (IJPS) is the oldest and most credible open-access journal in the field of plastic surgery. It offers free access to readers and does not charge authors for publication. The journal has a double-blind peer review process and is indexed in reputable databases such as DOAJ, Scopus, and PubMed. While other paid open-access journals may have similar titles, the IJPS remains a reliable choice for authors looking to publish in the field of plastic surgery without financial burden. [Extracted from the article]