scholarly journals On the dark side of open access and new expectations of scientific productivity in adult education research

Author(s):  
Tim Vetter ◽  
Michael Schemmann

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to explore international adult education research in the context of predatory publishing or predatory journals. The paper presents empirical characteristics of predatory journals, determines the quantitative occurrence of predatory journals in the field of adult education by means of a catalogue of criteria, takes a closer look at the authors of adult education contributions identified, and examines the content and quality of the contributions. The article deals with the phenomenon of predatory publishing, an unintended side effect of the Open Access movement, and thus operates in the context of Open Science.

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.


IFLA Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kodjo Atiso ◽  
Jenna Kammer ◽  
Jenny Bossaller

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


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-108

Predatory journals as defined by Beall in 2012 are publishers “which publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays” and also publishers that were “dishonest and lack transparency”. Any journal accepts the manuscript without any real and deep evaluation by reviewers are considered as predatory journals. In recent years, many predatory journals have been published worldwide in many research fields. Unfortunately, some of them found in the big and trustable research databases.


2021 ◽  

Das Buch versammelt die Beiträge der ersten Open-Access-Roadshow Schleswig-Holstein, die vom 11. bis 14. November 2019 in Kiel, Flensburg und Lübeck stattgefunden hat. Auf der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung wurden zentrale Themen rund um Open Access und Open Science beleuchtet, angefangen bei den politischen Rahmenbedingungen und notwendigen Weichenstellungen im universitären Publikationsbetrieb über Erfolge und Herausforderungen bei der Open-Access-Transformation in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg und Brandenburg bis hin zu digitalen Angeboten im Bereich der Lehre und Bildung, die Open Educational Resources (OER). Was Open Access für Verlage bedeutet, wird ebenso berücksichtigt wie die Themen Predatory Publishing, DEAL, Plan S und vieles mehr. Die Beiträge geben einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand von Open Access und zeigen auf, wie ein künftiger nachhaltiger Kulturwandel hin zu mehr Offenheit in Wissenschaft und Forschung gelingen könnte.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Mehmet Toran ◽  
Mesut Saçkes ◽  
Mine Gol-Guven

Journal of Childhood, Education & Society (JCES) was founded as a product of collective thought under the leadership of Dr. Mehmet Toran in July 2019 by a group of early childhood researchers who conduct both collaborative and independent academic research. Under the light of scientific research, current publishing policies cannot eliminate inequalities in public access for transfer and access of knowledge that is generated for the public weal (Beall, 2013). Particularly, having a limited access to the knowledge in early childhood studies is acknowledged as the first step for constitution of JCES. In this context, we would like to underline that independent researchers who are voluntarily taking part in the emergence of JCES are involved in a very courageous endeavour. This collective constitution takes an important responsibility for the public as well, and we point out that to fulfil this responsibility, it embraces moral and ethical rules as a reference point. Objectives, scope and ethical principles of JCES are determined with the contribution of the editorial board. In addition, we make promise to the larger research community of early childhood area that we will make sure to contribute to the area by giving a priority to high quality of research with robust evidence. JCES adopts open science perspective in early childhood studies. Therefore, JCES has a high opinion of sharing the knowledge among people who are in children’s ecology democratically. Attaching importance to open science policy, JCES defends scientific knowledge as public property that should be shared with all without depressing its value (Tonta, 2015). In the light of this target, -as JCES editorial board- we believe that scientific information that has been produced as public property should be shared with everyone through open access. The scientific communication enhanced between researchers-practitioners-readers is aimed to put into practice through the “open access” method. In this context, as open access policy within JCES, we embraced non-profit, voluntary editorial operations without charging a fee either from the reader or authors. Our experiences during publishing our first issue promise that it can be put into practice with a collective movement voluntarily on a digital platform. Solidarity is possible to carry out editorial process not only in Turkey but also with a contribution from every corner of the world. We have given extra importance to research ethics as our publishing policy. While specifying ethical principles, we aimed to take researcher’s attention to this issue. In this sense, after discussions with EECERA and then with the permission from Trustees of EECERA, we decided to embrace EECERA Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers that is formulated by Chris Pascal, Tony Bertram, Julia Formosinho, Colette Gray and Margy Whalley (2012). The ethical code bears qualification as a guide for researchers working in the early childhood area. We would like to indicate that applicant articles to the JCES are also evaluated in terms of those ethical codes during the editorial preliminary consideration process. After calling for papers for the inaugural issue, we had a considerable amount of article applications. Those applications studiously evaluated by the referees after preliminary considerations. In this process, constructive feedback from the referees and the revisions authors made in consideration to given feedback contributed to quality of articles concurrently to the quality of the journal. Peer review process that is held studiously, on time and constructively demonstrated that solidarity is built correctly and truthfully. Therefore, we would like to especially thank the referees for the inaugural issue. As you will see in the journal, there are six articles for the inaugural issue from five different countries: Belgium, Colombia, Israel,  Tanzania and the USA. This variety is a result of effective publicity of the journal by editorial board and efficient use of digital platforms with open access policy. Besides that, especially the call for papers announcements by EECERA in their member mail groups and social media accounts demonstrated once more how important solidarity is. As a result of this solidarity and cooperation, we would like to underline that the geographical variety of applicant articles strengthen our faith and self-confidence as well. After publishing first issue, we will continue pertinaciously working to strengthen international collaborations and to ensure continuity of the journal. Being aware of responsibility we are carrying and the risks we may face in the process, we would like to state that we have already taken necessary precautions. To ensure long running path and continuity of publishing for the journal, Gizem Alvan, Kerem Avcı and Taibe Kulaksız - doctorate students- have already started gaining experience in journal publishing and editorial administration process. These experiences would play an important role to provide sustainable publication of the journal. We would like to congratulate them to take part in a constitution courageously. We would like to thank all partners who contributed to spreading information to publish interest with open access with their articles and their supports in the editorial process for the inaugural issue. We would like to state that the call for papers continues for the second issue of JCES which will be published in August 2020 and we are open to early childhood researchers’ original contributions.


Author(s):  
Wole Michael Olatokun ◽  
Ojinga Gideon Omuinu

Putting into consideration the objective of the SDG 4, it would be important to note that the provision, access, and use of information resources such as open access (OA) journals is a sine qua non for quality education in Africa. Despite its importance to the education system, open access journals have been proliferated by predatory journals. Stakeholders in the OA movement and academia claim that predatory publishing is a big problem for scientific communication and could undermine development efforts. Hence, the increasing use of predatory open access journals could affect the attainment of SDGs in Africa; hence, there is the need to raise awareness to enhance the possibility of attaining the SDGs in Africa. This chapter will among others enumerate the possible havocs predatory open access journals can create and the setbacks on the attainment of SDGs in Africa. It will also spell out the necessary prospects of curtailing these havocs and setbacks towards providing quality-based information resources such as open access journals to the education societies in Africa.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).


Author(s):  
H. Rainer Schira ◽  
Chris Hurst

Predatory publishing has risen with the development of open access publishing. This study examines how many potential predatory journals were used by Brandon University students by analyzing their bibliographies. In total, 245 bibliographies including 2,359 citations were analyzed. Of the 1,485 citations to journals in these citations, five were found to cite journals on Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. The probable sources of these journals in the students’ bibliographies were examined.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Kisely

SUMMARYOpen access publishing has a dark side, the predatory publishers and journals that exist for revenue rather than scholarly activity. This article helps researchers to: (1) identify some of the commonly used tactics and characteristics of predatory publishing; and (2) avoid falling prey to them. In summary, authors should choose the journal for submission themselves and never respond to unsolicited emails. It is also important to check blacklists such as ‘Stop Predatory Journals’ and whitelists such the Directory of Open Access Journals.LEARNING OBJECTIVESAfter reading this article, readers should be able to do the following: •be aware of the dangers of predatory journals and publishers•use blacklists of predatory journals and publishers’ whitelists of legitimate open access journals•be aware of warning signs that might suggest a predatory journal or publisher.DECLARATION OF INTERESTS.K. is on the editorial board of BJPsych International. He also receives five to ten spam emails a day from predatory journals and publishers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document