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

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

Objective

The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.

Methods

Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.

Results

Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.

Conclusion

The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.

PURPOSE

To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.

RESULTS

The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.

CONCLUSION

The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

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.

To Decline or Accept: A Guide for Determining the Legitimacy of Academic Conference Invitations

IMPORTANCE

After the rise of predatory journals characterized by false claims of legitimacy and a pay-to-publish model, similar "predatory conferences" have become increasingly common. The email inbox of an academic physician can be filled with daily announcements encouraging conference attendance, abstract submission, and often panel or keynote speaker invitations. It therefore becomes important for the plastic surgeon to be able to discern whether these invitations are from "predatory" conferences or legitimate career advancement opportunities, especially early in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To aid the invited physician in determining the legitimacy of a conference, we aimed to characterize objective features of conferences for which email invitations have been received and use this information to build a decision-making guide.

DESIGN

We analyzed all conference invitations received by the email of one academic plastic surgeon in a 4-month period. These conferences were organized into 3 groups based on affiliation with known professional societies. The following information was collected if available: affiliation with a professional society, type of invitation, conference location, conference format (in-person, virtual, or hybrid), conference title, conference fees, conference organizer, associated journals or publishers, abstract journal submission, grammar, headshots, time to abstract review, and acceptance.

RESULTS

There were 56 unique conference invitations. These were categorized into 15 affiliated conferences, 28 unaffiliated conferences, and 17 conferences of undetermined affiliation. Unaffiliated conferences were more likely to solicit speaker invitations ( P < 0.001), claim to be "international" ( P = 0.001), send emails with grammatical errors ( P < 0.001), use unprofessional headshots on the conference Web site ( P < 0.001), and have reduced virtual conference fees ( P = 0.0032) as compared with conferences affiliated with known professional societies. When comparing the attendance and presenter fees of in-person venues, there was no significant difference between affiliated and unaffiliated conferences ( P = 0.973, P = 0.604). Affiliated conferences were more likely to take place in the United States ( P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We present a method to quickly assess the legitimacy of an academic meeting by way of a few important questions. Based on our findings, emails soliciting conference speakers, claims of international presence, grammatical errors, unprofessional headshots, and reduced virtual conference fees are all characteristics that should raise red flags.

[Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 2 Assess their consequences and initiate a response]

The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct.

Predatory Publishers/Journals in Medical Sciences: How to Avoid, Stop, and What to Do after Being Scammed by Them?

PURPOSE

The phenomenon of predatory publishers and journals is one of the recent issues to affect the scientific field. It has negative impacts upon scientific research and harmful consequences, including the spread of pseudo-medical sciences. This article discusses general outlines regarding the concept of predatory journals to clarify this issue for junior researchers and academic workers.

METHODS

A brief description of the mechanism of publication within legitimate journals was highlighted. Moreover, the negative impact of this behavior was clarified along with several suggestions that may help authors to avoid predatory journals. Finally, post-predatory publication procedures were discussed, followed by practical steps to eliminate or minimize this phenomenon.

CONCLUSION

The practice of publishing in the predatory journals needs to be addressed; raising this topic in all academic and research institutions may help minimize the impacts. Moreover, this topic must be part of the curriculum for both undergraduate and graduate courses to draw students' attention to this issue. Furthermore, actions should be taken against those who deliberately publish their work in such journals.

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers

OBJECTIVES

To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry.

METHODS

E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline.

RESULTS

A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails.

CONCLUSIONS

The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.

Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing

Purpose

In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.

Design/methodology/approach

In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.

Findings

We found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.

Originality/value

The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them

Predatory journals-also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals-are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about article processing charges, misrepresenting members of the journal's editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Because of their increasing prevalence, this article aims to provide helpful information for authors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

The understanding of research ethics at health sciences schools in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Research ethics is required for high-quality research that positively influences society. There is limited understanding of research ethics in Middle Eastern countries including Jordan. Here, we aim to investigate the level of understanding of research ethics principles among health sciences faculty members in Jordan.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study where faculty members from the University of Jordan were surveyed for their knowledge and, attitude of research ethics principles. The study was conducted in the period between July 2016 to July 2017 using a customized-design questionnaire involving demographic data and participants' contributions toward research, and assessment of participants' knowledge, belief and attitude towards research ethics. Different question-formats have been used including multiple-choice, yes or no, and a four point Likert-type questions. Obtained responses were tabulated according to gender, academic-rank, and knowledge about research ethics principles.

RESULTS

The study had a response rate of 51%. Among the 137 participants of this study, most (96%) were involved in human and animal research, yet, only 2/3 had prior training in research ethics. Moreover, 91% believed that investigators should have training in research ethics and 87% believed that there should be a mandatory postgraduate course on that. The average correct scores for correct understanding of researchers towards research ethics was 62%. Yet, there were some misconceptions about the major ethical principles as only 43% identified them correctly. Additionally, the role of research ethics committees was not well understood by most of the respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is acceptable knowledge about research ethics, discrepancies in understanding in research ethics principles seems to exist. There is a large support for further training in responsible conduct of research by faculty in health sciences in Jordan. Thus, such training should be required by universities to address this knowledge gap in order to improve research quality and its impact on society.

Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam"

This article presents an editorial perspective on the challenges associated with e-mail management for academic physicians. We include 2-week analysis of our own e-mails as illustrations of the e-mail volume and content. We discuss the contributors to high e-mail volumes, focusing especially on unsolicited e-mails from medical/scientific conferences and open-access journals (sometimes termed “academic spam emails”), as these e-mails comprise a significant volume and are targeted to physicians and scientists. Our 2-person sample is consistent with studies showing that journals that use mass e-mail advertising have low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one’s inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette. Academic institutions should focus on decreasing the volume of unsolicited e-mails, fostering tools to manage e-mail overload, and educating physicians including trainees about e-mail practices, predatory journals, and scholarly database/resources.