What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Teaching Nursing Students and Nurses About Predatory Publishing

BACKGROUND

All nurses, not just nurse authors, must be aware of the problems and concerns of predatory publishing practices. This is an important topic for nurse educators.

METHOD

Nurse educators must teach nursing students and nurses about the differences between reputable nursing journals and those produced by predatory publishers. Although there are several differences between reputable and predatory nursing journals, the lack of adequate peer review is an important problem. An active teaching strategy is provided that nurse educators may use to facilitate learning about reputable and predatory nursing journals.

RESULTS

Nursing students and nurses will be able to assess a journal for features that suggest the publication is reputable or one that may be produced by a predatory publisher.

CONCLUSION

Nurse educators should teach nursing students and nurses about predatory publishing practices so they can begin to use appropriate discretion when searching for evidence that informs patient care. [J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(11):627-631.].

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

When It Comes to Editor-in-Chief Dr Guy G. Simoneau, Thanks Isn't Enough-It's More About Inspiration

After 15.5 years of guiding the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) through its amazing progress, Guy G. Simoneau is stepping down as Editor-in-Chief, handing editorial leadership of the Journal to the very talented and able Clare L. Ardern, beginning with the July 2019 issue. In this editorial, we, the JOSPT/Movement Science Media Board of Directors, summarize some of Dr Simoneau's many achievements and humbly express our gratitude and that of the Editorial Board and publishing team for his overwhelming devotion to the JOSPT for nearly 2 decades. Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):363-365. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.0102.

A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs.

SETTING

An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs.

RESULTS

A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.

Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals

BACKGROUND

Nursing journals from predatory publication outlets may look authentic and seem to be a credible source of information. However, further inspection may reveal otherwise.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze publication and dissemination patterns of articles published in known predatory nursing journals.

METHOD

Using Scopus, reference lists were searched for citations from seven identified predatory nursing journals. Bibliographic information and subsequent citation information were then collected and analyzed.

FINDINGS

A total of 814 citations of articles published in predatory nursing journals were identified. Further analysis indicated that these articles were cited in 141 nonpredatory nursing journals of various types.

DISCUSSION

Predatory nursing journals continue to persist, yet fewer may now be in existence. Education and information may help authors and reviewers identify predatory journals, thereby discouraging submissions to these publications and hesitancy among authors to cite articles published in them.

Burden and Characteristics of Unsolicited Emails from Medical/Scientific Journals, Conferences, and Webinars to Faculty and Trainees at an Academic Pathology Department

Background

Professionals and trainees in the medical and scientific fields may receive high e-mail volumes for conferences and journals. In this report, we analyze the amount and characteristics of unsolicited e-mails for journals, conferences, and webinars received by faculty and trainees in a pathology department at an academic medical center.

Methods

With informed consent, we analyzed 7 consecutive days of e-mails from faculty and trainees who voluntarily participated in the study and saved unsolicited e-mails from their institutional e-mail address (including junk e-mail folder) for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars. All e-mails were examined for characteristics such as reply receipts, domain name, and spam likelihood. Journal e-mails were specifically analyzed for claims in the message body (for example, peer review, indexing in databases/resources, rapid publication) and actual inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources.

Results

A total of 17 faculty (4 assistant, 4 associate, and 9 full professors) and 9 trainees (5 medical students, 2 pathology residents, and 2 pathology fellows) completed the study. A total of 755 e-mails met study criteria (417 e-mails from 328 unique journals, 244 for conferences, and 94 for webinars). Overall, 44.4% of e-mails were flagged as potential spam by the institutional default settings, and 13.8% requested reply receipts. The highest burden of e-mails in 7 days was by associate and full professors (maximum 158 or approximately 8200 per year), although some trainees and assistant professors had over 30 e-mails in 7 days (approximately 1560 per year). Common characteristics of journal e-mails were mention of "peer review" in the message body and low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources, with 76.4% not found in any of 9 journal databases/resources. The location for conferences in e-mails included 31 different countries, with the most common being the United States (33.2%), Italy (9.8%), China (4.9%), United Kingdom (4.9%), and Canada (4.5%).

Conclusions

The present study in an academic pathology department shows a high burden of unsolicited e-mails for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars, especially to associate and full professors. We also demonstrate that some pathology trainees and junior faculty are receiving an estimated 1500 unsolicited e-mails per year.