Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals

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.

Why do healthcare researchers in South Asia publish in predatory journals? A scoping review

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.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine

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.

[Predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology]

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.

Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence

OBJECTIVES

Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers.

METHODS

The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields.

RESULTS

The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper.

CONCLUSIONS

This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal.

Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool?

Yamada and Teixeira da Silva voiced valid concerns with the inadequacies of an online machine learning-based tool to detect predatory journals, and stressed on the urgent need for an automated, open, online-based semi-quantitative system that measures "predatoriness". We agree that the said machine learning-based tool lacks accuracy in its demarcation and identification of journals outside those already found within existing black and white lists, and that its use could have undesirable impact on the community. We note further that the key characteristic of journals being predatory, namely a lack of stringent peer review, would normally not have the visibility necessary for training and informing machine learning-based online tools. This, together with the gray zone of inadequate scholarly practice and the plurality in authors' perception of predatoriness, makes it desirable for any machine-based, quantitative assessment to be complemented or moderated by a community-based, qualitative assessment that would do more justice to both journals and authors.

Rebranding of Predatory Journals and Conferences: Understanding Its Implication and Prevention Strategy

Academic conference participation and publications serve as a litmus test to evaluate researchers irrespective of their scientific discipline. Predatory or fake conferences and journals exploit this issue and rebrand themselves through multiple methods. This paper serves to introduce rebranding as one of the features adopted by predatory journals and conferences and formulate some important measures that could be taken by academic libraries, researchers, and publishers to address this issue. We found that rebranding serves as an efficient measure to evade legal implications. However, empirical longitudinal studies addressing the issue are absent. We have explained rebranding, multiple ways of rebranding, issues surrounding predatory publishing, and the role of academic libraries and provided a five-point prevention strategy to protect researchers from academic malpractices. Dedicated tools, scientific prowess, and vigilance of academic libraries and researchers can safeguard the scientific community. Creating awareness, increasing transparency of available databases, and the support of academic libraries and publishing houses along with global support will serve as effective measures to tackle predatory malpractices.

Publication ethics versus publicity applied to medical science]

The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.

Unsolicited solicitations: identifying characteristics of unsolicited emails from potentially predatory journals and the role of librarians

Email solicitations for manuscript submissions are a common tactic employed by predatory journals to attract potential victims. Both new and established researchers alike have fallen prey to this tactic, justifying the need for librarians to provide further education and support in this area. This commentary provides a succinct overview of predatory journals; briefly describes the problem of predatory journal email solicitations; explains the role librarians can play in their identification; and lists some red flags and tactics librarians can tell researchers to look out for, as informed by the literature and the author's analysis of 60 unsolicited journal emails she received in her own institutional inbox.

An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics.

RESULTS

Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific-sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a "call to arms," given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public's trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.

[Beware of Wolves in Sheep`s Clothing: A Brief Introduction to Open Access and Predatory Journals]

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.

Choosing a Journal for Submission: Don't Fall Prey

The column in this issue is supplied by Barbara Gastel, MD, MPH, who is professor of veterinary integrative biosciences and of humanities in medicine at Texas A&M University, where she coordinates the graduate program in communicating science. Dr. Gastel obtained her medical and public health degrees from Johns Hopkins University. She is first author of the current edition of How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (ABC-CLIO, 2016).

Publishing in Predatory Journals: Guidelines for Nursing Faculty in Promotion and Tenure Policies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing.

DESIGN

This study used a cross-sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research-intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools.

FINDINGS

The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how schools of nursing in research-intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low-quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice.

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers’ submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal’s business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one’s manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one’s work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

Usefulness of a workshop on scientific writing and publication in improving the baseline knowledge deficit among postgraduates

BACKGROUND

A well-written manuscript published in a reputable journal is the deserved end-point of good research. It is important for postgraduates to be trained in scientific writing for their academic progression as well as the advancement of science.

METHODS

A day-long workshop on scientific writing and publication was conducted at Raipur, India in February 2020. The medical postgraduate (UK equivalent: Core Medical Trainee) participants were engaged with lectures, discussions and a practical session requiring critical appraisal of a manuscript. The lectures also discussed publication ethics and the perils of falling prey to predatory journals. Pre and post-workshop surveys were given to the participants to assess the impact of the workshop on the baseline knowledge of scientific writing and publishing.

RESULTS

Out of 69 participants, there were 67 (response rate 97%) and 41 (response rate 59%) respondents to the pre and post-workshop surveys respectively. The former identified a lack of baseline knowledge ranging from 6% for determining the components of the individual sections of the manuscript such as Introduction or Methods, 40% for the use of acronyms, and 55% for knowledge of different referencing styles, to 61% for knowledge of indexing agencies. The post-workshop survey revealed improvement in participants' knowledge of the contents of various sections of the manuscript and their knowledge about referencing styles and indexing agencies. In the post-workshop survey, 20% of respondents said that they would be open to engaging with predatory journals, which underscored the need to educate them continuously regarding the demerits of such practice. Participants expressed the need for longer workshops, preferably spread over two days, with discussion on research methodology and statistical analysis, and more 'hands-on' sessions.

CONCLUSION

This survey underscores the need for structured training in scientific writing. Its inclusion in the medical postgraduate curriculum appears desirable.

Predatory Journals, Fake Conferences and Misleading Social Media: The Dark Side of Medical Information

We live in an age of information revolution, where trends in informing physicians and the lay public bring new challenges that must be faced by healthcare professionals. Predatory journals and fake conferences are common. Social media is full of false information, which results in serious public health damage. Therefore, it is important that health professionals communicate properly with the public and patients and that they address the education of both the public and other health professionals.

Predatory nursing journals: A case study of author prevalence and characteristics

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.

AIM

To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.

DESIGN

Quantitative descriptive case study.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.

DISCUSSION

Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.

CONCLUSION

While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to learn how predatory journal articles were cited in articles published in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals. The extent of citation and citation patterns were studied.

DESIGN

A two-phase approach was used.

METHODS

In Phase 1, 204 articles published in legitimate nursing journals that cited a predatory publication were randomly selected for analysis from a list of 814 articles with predatory journal citations. In Phase 2, the four predatory journal articles that were cited most frequently were analyzed further to examine their citation patterns.

FINDINGS

The majority (n = 148, 72.55%) of the articles that cited a predatory publication were research reports. Most commonly, the predatory article was only cited once (n = 117, 61.58%). Most (n = 158, 82.72%) of the predatory articles, though, were used substantively, that is, to provide a basis for the study or methods, describe the results, or explain the findings. The four articles in Phase 2 generated 38 citations in legitimate journals, published from 2011 to 2019, demonstrating persistence in citation. An evaluation of the quality of these articles was mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study provide an understanding of the use and patterns of citations to predatory articles in legitimate nursing journals. Authors who choose predatory journals as the channel to disseminate their publications devalue the work that publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play in scholarly dissemination. Likewise, those who cite these works are also contributing to the problem of predatory publishing in nursing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nurse authors should not publish their work in predatory journals and should avoid citing articles from these journals, which disseminates the content through the scholarly nursing literature.

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.

An insight into predatory journals

The impact of scholarly journals has increased with invent of Internet due to improved access, faster dissemination, and ease of searching a variety of publications. With the increasing trend of research, open access (OA) publishing has increased intensely over the last few years. The core intent of OA is faster dissemination of research by making it available to readers free of cost. However, some publishers exploited this novel idea for their own benefit. Beall termed them as predatory publishers/journals. In this article, authors have made efforts to understand the predatory publishers/journal, reasons behind their upsurge, their modus operandi, their common targets, and the points which will help readers to identify them. The aim of this article is to expose facts behind the predatory journal and to create awareness among not only budding researchers but also faculty members, authors, and editors about the threat predatory journals carry toward scientific world and to their own curricula.

Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.

Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey

Introduction

Predatory journals harm the integrity of science as principles of 'good scientific practice' are bypassed by omitting a proper peer-review process. Therefore, we aimed to explore the awareness of predatory journals among oncologists.

Methods

An online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019.

Results

One hundred and eighty-eight participants (55 women (29.2%), 128 men (68.1%)) completed the questionnaire. 41 (21.8%) participants indicated to work in a hospital, 24 (12.8%) in private practice and 112 (59.6%) in a university hospital. 98.9% of participants indicated to actively read scientific articles and consider them in clinical decision-making (96.3%). 90.4% of participants indicated to have scientific experience by publishing papers in journals with peer-review system. The open-access system was known by 170 (90.4%), predatory journals by 131 (69.7%) and Beall's list by 52 participants (27.7%). Predatory journals were more likely to be known by participants with a higher number of publications (p<0.001), with more high-impact publications (p=0.005) and with recent publications (p<0.001). Awareness of predatory journals did not correlate with gender (p=0.515) or translation of scientific literature into clinical practice (p=0.543).

Conclusions

The problematic topic of 'predatory journals' is still unknown by a considerable amount of oncologist, although the survey was taken in a cohort of oncologists with scientific experience. Dedicated educational initiatives are needed to raise awareness of this problem and to aid in the identification of predatory journals for the scientific oncology community.

Understanding Quality in Research: Avoiding Predatory Journals

Peer-review publishing has long been the gold standard for disseminating research. The peer-review process holds researchers accountable for their work and conveys confidence that the article is of value to the reader. Predatory journals and publishing pose a global threat to the quality of scientific literature, accuracy of educational resources, and safety of patient care. Predatory publishing uses an exploitative business model, substandard quality control measures, and deceptive publishing practices. Given the proliferation of these journals and the extreme measures utilized to disguise substandard publishing practices, avoiding them can prove difficult. Understanding the nature of predatory publishing and how to recognize the warning signs provide helpful measures to authors, researchers, students, and readers. Additional resources known to help avoid predatory publishers have been discussed in addition to reviewing the Journal of Human Lactation guidelines for publishing.

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study

Background

Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.

Objective

Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.

Methods

Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.

Results

A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.

Conclusions

Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Do Preys Prey on Their Predators? Confusion Over Predatory "Hage-taka" Journals

For the last several years, predatory journals have been a topic of discussion in top scientific journals, such as Nature. Predatory journals are problematic because they create public mistrust of scientific publication as a whole by the mass production of non-credible publications with the sole aim of profit. Recently, articles in a Japanese newspaper and online articles exposed domestic institutions for the number of publications in predatory journals, saying that they “abused predatory journals to increase the number of their publications and falsely inflate their academic achievements.” We do not subscribe to this point of view because publications in predatory journals do not count as scholarly achievements, and we believe it is an information literacy problem. We feel strongly that it is both important and beneficial for the readers of The Japan Medical AssociationJournal to be aware of and understand this issue.

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.

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

OBJECTIVES

To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.

DESIGN

An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.

PARTICIPANTS

Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.

RESULTS

Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.

CONCLUSIONS

This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

The bane of publishing a research article in international journals by African researchers, the peer-review process and the contentious issue of predatory journals: a commentary

Scholarly publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the highest form of disseminating research findings. However, the process of publishing in peer-reviewed journals remains a daunting task for researchers and academics in Africa. This commentary will assist authors in Africa to understand the peer-review process, to appreciate the length of time it takes for a manuscript to be published and to encourage them to publish in local peer-review journals. The authors argue that the peer-review process is essential because it acts as a quality control mechanism to ensure that valid and reliable research is published. Although peer review does not guarantee exclusive publication of reliable and valid research, it remains central in the scientific activity. Authors need to take the comments from reviewers and editors, even in cases of rejection seriously and in the positive sense, inorder to improve upon the quality of their work. Rejections by some journals happen not to be scientifically grounded. It happens that African authors suffer more from this flaw. This could justify why some naïve authors easily turn to publish in predatory journals. The authors argue that publishing in local journals is imperative for Africans scholars. Therefore, initiatives to encourage publication in these journals are highly needed.

Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

The Predatory Journal Issue: Part II

Every morning when I open my email, it is the same: 5-10 emails inviting me to submit my "valuable and esteemed" research to a journal that is new to me and just sounds off. Added to these invitations are a couple of requests to present at conferences in far-flung locations, often accompanied by photographs of "honored" presenters, mostly physicians; none of these publications or conferences are in my field, and they have generic titles and focus on general themes, such as "Global Nursing 2017." Every morning, I go through the same exercise: I flag them as junk and assume they will be blocked. But, the next morning, it is the same futile exercise. And I know many of you have the same daily ritual.
.

Influence of Internet and Social Media in the Promotion of Alternative Oncology, Cancer Quackery, and the Predatory Publishing Phenomenon

In the last decade, electronic media has irrupted physician's clinical practice. Patients increasingly use Internet and social media to obtain enormous amounts of unsupervised data about cancer. Blogs, social networking sites, online support groups and forums are useful channels for medical education and experience sharing but also perfect environments for misinformation, quackery, violation of privacy and lack of professionalism. The widespread availability of such electronic resources allows some followers of the alternative oncology to spread useless irrational and controversial remedies for cancer, like false medicaments, miraculous diets, electronic devices, and even psychic therapies, as did charlatans in the past, providing false expectations about cancer treatments. Moreover, so-called predatory journals have introduced confusion and malpractice within the academic biomedical publishing system. This is a rising editorial phenomenon affecting all fields of biomedicine, including oncology that jeopardizes the quality of scientific contribution and damages the image of open access publication.

Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: a 12-month early-career researcher experience

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study aims to describe all unsolicited electronic invitations received from potential predatory publishers or fraudulent conferences over a 12-month period following the first publication as a corresponding author of a junior academician.

STUDY DESIGN

Unsolicited invitations received at an institutional email address and perceived to be sent by predatory publishers or fraudulent conferences were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 502 invitations were included of which 177 (35.3%) had subject matter relevant to the recipient's research interests and previous work. Two hundred and thirty-seven were invitations to publish a manuscript. Few disclosed the publication fees (32, 13.5%) but they frequently reported accepting all types of manuscripts (167, 70.5%) or emphasised on a deadline to submit (165, 69.6%). Invitations came from 39 publishers (range 1 to 87 invitations per publisher). Two hundred and ten invitations from a potential fraudulent conference were received. These meetings were held in Europe (97, 46.2%), North America (65, 31.0%), Asia (20.4%) or other continents (5, 2.4%) and came from 18 meeting organisation groups (range 1 to 137 invitations per organisation). Becoming an editorial board member (30), the editor-in-chief (1), a guest editor for journal special issue (6) and write a book chapter (11) were some of the roles offered in the other invitations included while no invitation to review a manuscript was received.

CONCLUSIONS

Young researchers are commonly exposed to predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences following a single publication as a corresponding author. Academic institutions worldwide need to educate and inform young researchers of this emerging problem.

Predatory Publishing: How to Safely Navigate the Waters of Open Access

Open access publishing enables scholarship to be openly accessible to everyone, which has countless benefits. However, the open access movement has opened the door for "predatory publishers" to take advantage of researchers surviving in this publish or perish academic landscape. Predatory journals are becoming increasingly common. Nursing researchers, instructors, and students need to be made aware of the dangers of predatory journals, and they need to know how to identify them. While there are blacklists and whitelists that can be used to aid in decision-making, it is critical to note that these lists can never be entirely up to date. This article incorporates a literature review which provides insights into newer trends in predatory and unethical publishing, including "journal hijacking" and "bogus impact factors". Extensive criteria for assessing emerging or unknown journals is compiled to aid researchers, students, educators, and the public in evaluating open access publications.

Valuable Research in Fake Journals and Self-boasting with Fake Metrics

Valuable research works are getting wasted by publishing them in so called, fake journals (pseudo journals, hijacked or predatory journals). Fake journals are the journals which do not perform peer review or minimal language editing in the name of peer review. Unaware of negative consequences of publishing in fake journals, budding or novice academician/clinician/researcher continue to fall prey for them. Present scenario, forced them to get their valuable research published for promotion, pay hike, academic or research reputation, etc. But, they boast themselves by publishing them in fake journals with fake metrics. By making publication in fake journals, only the publishers make profit and pseudo enhance the bio-data of novice academician. It is becoming a big business. In this short communication, we have highlighted the most common prevalent issue among the novice or budding academician.

False gold: Safely navigating open access publishing to avoid predatory publishers and journals

AIM

The aim of this study was to review and discuss predatory open access publishing in the context of nursing and midwifery and develop a set of guidelines that serve as a framework to help clinicians, educators and researchers avoid predatory publishers.

BACKGROUND

Open access publishing is increasingly common across all academic disciplines. However, this publishing model is vulnerable to exploitation by predatory publishers, posing a threat to nursing and midwifery scholarship and practice. Guidelines are needed to help researchers recognize predatory journals and publishers and understand the negative consequences of publishing in them.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of BioMed Central, CINAHL, MEDLINE with Full Text and PubMed for terms related to predatory publishing, published in the period 2007-2017.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Lack of awareness of the risks and pressure to publish in international journals, may result in nursing and midwifery researchers publishing their work in dubious open access journals. Caution should be taken prior to writing and submitting a paper, to avoid predatory publishers.

FINDINGS

The advantage of open access publishing is that it provides readers with access to peer-reviewed research as soon as it is published online. However, predatory publishers use deceptive methods to exploit open access publishing for their own profit. Clear guidelines are needed to help researchers navigate safely open access publishing.

CONCLUSION

A deeper understanding of the risks of predatory publishing is needed. Clear guidelines should be followed by nursing and midwifery researchers seeking to publish their work in open access journals.

Due diligence in the open-access explosion era: choosing a reputable journal for publication

Faculty are required to publish. Naïve and "in-a-hurry-to-publish" authors seek to publish in journals where manuscripts are rapidly accepted. Others may innocently submit to one of an increasing number of questionable/predatory journals, where predatory is defined as practices of publishing journals for exploitation of author-pays, open-access publication model by charging authors publication fees for publisher profit without provision of expected services (expert peer review, editing, archiving, and indexing published manuscripts) and promising almost instant publication. Authors may intentionally submit manuscripts to predatory journals for rapid publication without concern for journal quality. A brief summary of the open access "movement," suggestions for selecting reputable open access journals, and suggestion for avoiding predatory publishers/journals are described. The purpose is to alert junior and seasoned faculty about predatory publishers included among available open access journal listings. Brief review of open access publication, predatory/questionable journal characteristics, suggestions for selecting reputable open access journals and avoiding predatory publishers/journals are described. Time is required for intentionally performing due diligence in open access journal selection, based on publisher/journal quality, prior to manuscript submission or authors must be able to successfully withdraw manuscripts when submission to a questionable or predatory journal is discovered.

Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals

Predatory journals, or journals that charge an article processing charge (APC) to authors, yet do not have the hallmarks of legitimate scholarly journals such as peer review and editing, Editorial Boards, editorial offices, and other editorial standards, pose a number of new ethical issues in journal publishing. This paper discusses ethical issues around predatory journals and publishing in them. These issues include misrepresentation; lack of editorial and publishing standards and practices; academic deception; research and funding wasted; lack of archived content; and undermining confidence in research literature. It is important that the scholarly community, including authors, institutions, editors, and publishers, support the legitimate scholarly research enterprise, and avoid supporting predatory journals by not publishing in them, serving as their editors or on the Editorial Boards, or permitting faculty to knowingly publish in them without consequences.

Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing

Academic researchers who seek to publish their work are confronted daily with a barrage of e-mails from aggressive marketing campaigns that solicit them to publish their research with a specialized, often newly launched, journal. Known as predatory journals, they often promise high editorial and publishing standards, yet their exploitive business models, poor quality control, and minimal overall transparency victimize those researchers with limited academic experience and pave the way for low-quality articles that threaten the foundation of evidence-based research. Understanding how to identify these predatory journals requires thorough due diligence on the part of the submitting authors, and a commitment by reputable publishers, institutions, and researchers to publicly identify these predators and eliminate them as a threat to the careers of young scientists seeking to disseminate their work in scholarly journals. Anat Sci Educ 10: 392-394. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Does small equal predatory? Analysis of publication charges and transparency of editorial policies in Croatian open access journals

Introduction

We approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work.

Materials and methods

We analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrčak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies.

Results

The majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from “predatory” journals. Almost all Hrčak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrčak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal’s origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards.

Conclusion

In order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies.