scholarly journals When peril responds to plague: predatory journal engagement with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Critical Areas ◽  
Information Intermediaries ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journal

PurposeThe academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.Design/methodology/approachThis article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.FindingsThe empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.Originality/valueThis study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.

scholarly journals Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Governance Mechanism ◽  
Management Research ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

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.

The Case for a Technology Solution to the Ethics Crisis in Academic Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Keith Wright
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Technological Solution ◽  
Comprehensive Description ◽  
Proof Of Knowledge ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Technology Solution

This article integrates existing theory from distributed computing and cryptology with gray literature from industry to provide a comprehensive description of the minimum requirements of a technological solution to the current ethics crisis in academic publishing. The paper argues that such a solution could significantly reduce the biases and misconduct that now exist in the academic peer review process. Theory suggests such a system could operate effectively as a distributed encrypted telecommunications network where nodes are anonymous, do not trust each other, with minimal central authority. To incentivize the academic community to join such a community, the paper proposes a new pseudo-cryptocurrency called litcoin (literature coin). This litcoin-based system would create economic scarcity based on proof of knowledge (POK), which is a synthesis of the proof of work (POW) mechanism used in bitcoin, and the proof of stake (POS) mechanism used in various altcoin communities.

scholarly journals Debatt om røvertidsskrift

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-35
Author(s):  
Eva Sauvage ◽  
Siv Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals –a debate Introduction: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten revealed extensive problems with predatory publishing in an article that led to headlines in Norwegian news media in August 2018. Many were concerned about how the rise of open access journals had led to the growth of publishers with uncertain peer review processes, and worried about the consequences this may have for the public trust in science. A few weeks later, the Norwegian government joined the European Coalition S, which aims to mandate researchers who receive grants from the Research Council to publish in gold open access journals.  Method: Qualitative content analysis Results: Researchers are deeply concerned about public trust in science. The debate displayed a clearly either pro and con opinions towards open access publishing, and researchers are especially concerned about the peer review process. Some actors believe there is a strong connection between open access and predatory journals. Other actors blame the international competition and pressure to publish as a cause for the rise of predatory publishing. Some actors applaud the radical transformation of scientific publishing and of the peer review process, while others fear this development. Discussion: We discuss how this may affect research support at university libraries. Coalition S faced great opposition among the majority of Norwegian researchers, while the librarians who participated in the debate were in unison positive. The challenges of predatory publishers may intensify in the years to come with the introduction of Coalition S and a radical reorganization of scientific publishing. Conclusion: The debate shows that there is a clear need for a "white list" of peer-reviewed and quality-assured publishing channels, where the Nordic list is a good start.  Librarians have special expertise on metadata formats and knowledge about information literacy that can help researchers with quality assessment.

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: when highs and lows of publication cultures meet

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tereza Stöckelová ◽  
Filip Vostal
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Current System ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Two Bodies

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link up and think through two bodies of literature, namely the critique of predatory publishing practices and the critique of political economy of established publishers, while introducing a reflection on the dynamic asymmetries of geopolitics and economics of globalizing knowledge production. Design/methodology/approach The authors deploy a conceptual approach developed with reference to a case study in order to explore the embedded logic of the current system of academic publishing. Findings The analysis shows that rather than examining two seemingly different issues (predatory publishing vs established publishers) as conflictual dualism, it is more productive to conceive them in associative and mutually constitutive fashion. Research limitations/implications A nuanced and multidimensional research approach is needed if we are to understand the dynamics of contemporary academic landscape. Originality/value The originality of the contribution lies in its problematizing of three established approaches that feature debates on the transformation of the academy. It moves beyond a micro-level explanation by (the lack of) individual morality as well as a structural explanatory framework preoccupied with publishing infrastructure and culturalist approach based on ready-made dichotomies of west/north vs south/east. Instead, the analysis provides an account that engages both with morality and geopolitics whilst tackling them as dynamic processes in making.

Predatory publishing through McCornarck’s information manipulation theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 331-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Kipkemoi Bett
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Information Manipulation ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse how predatory journals use spam emails to manipulate potential authors. This has been done based on McCornack’s information manipulation theory (IMT). Generally, predatory publishing is on the increase globally but more pronounced in developing countries. Although it affects both young and seasoned scholars, inexperienced scholars and those ignorant on credible publishing are the most affected. Design/methodology/approach The current study through document analysis focuses on email invites from predatory journals sent to the author between June 2016 and December 2018 after publishing a peer-reviewed journal article. The resultant texts were analysed using a directed qualitative content analysis. Findings Findings indicate that the invites flouted all the four Gricean maxims (of quality, quantity, manner and relevance) as posited by IMT. This suggests that the spam mails sent to the author sought to manipulate potential authors to publish with predatory journals. Research limitations/implications This qualitative study focuses on email invites to the author which may not fully capture the manipulation by predatory journals. Practical implications It is important that scholars in developing contexts are aware of how predatory publishers seek to manipulate their victims. Universities and research institutions should be intentional in enlightening their academic staff on predatory journals and their characteristics. Similarly, universities should consider disincentivising their faculty members who publish in such platforms. Originality/value The originality in this study lies in its use of IMT to explain how predatory journals manipulate potentials authors.

Understanding Quality in Research: Avoiding Predatory Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genae Strong
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Human Lactation ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Global Threat ◽  
Publishing Practices

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.

scholarly journals GAP – German Academic Publishers: A Network Approach to Scholarly Publishing

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Braun
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Online Publishing ◽  
German Research Foundation ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Organizational Network ◽  
German Research ◽  
Online Management ◽  
Open Archives

Abstract: GAP — German Academic Publishers (www.gap-c.de) is a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) to create an infrastructure for a new model for academic publishing. One aim of the project is to create an organizational network of academic presses and other eligible academic publishing institutions, including a business plan to guarantee a sustainable “life” for GAP after funding expires. Another goal is to establish the necessary infrastructure for online publishing (including a peer-review process) and online management of persons, roles, and other elements of the publishing process. GAP will act as both data and service provider for the Open Archives Initiative. GAP’s most prominent aim is to make what is published through its channels available for free on the Internet. Résumé : German Academic Publishers (le GAP à www.gap-c.de) est un projet financé par le German Research Foundation (DFG) pour poser les fondements d’un nouveau modèle d’édition académique. Un des buts de ce projet est de créer un réseau organisationnel de presses et autres organismes œuvrant dans l’édition académique, ainsi qu’un plan d’affaires assurant une vie durable au GAP suivant la fin de son financement. Un autre but est d’établir une infrastructure permettant l’édition en ligne (y compris un processus d’évaluation par les pairs) et la gestion en ligne de personnes, rôles et autres composantes de l’édition. Le GAP agira ainsi en tant que fournisseur de services et de données pour l’Open Archives Initiative. Le premier but du GAP est d’offrir sur Internet un accès gratuit à tous les textes qu’il édite.

scholarly journals The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

Most courses are not born digital

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangeline Marlos Varonis
Keyword(s):  
Online Learning ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Shared Services ◽  
Online Course Design ◽  
Content Type

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss benefits of and barriers to online learning and describe utilization of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process as a method to assure the quality of online courses. It outlines the QM higher education rubric, explains how the collaborative QM peer review process facilitates online course design and certification, reports on the development of a statewide consortium in Ohio, and explores future directions in online courses. Design/methodology/approach – This paper offers a brief historical review of the incorporation of technology into teaching and learning. It describes attitudes toward online learning and the creation of the non-profit QM program as a vehicle for improving online course design. It summarizes the eight standards of the QM rubric, describes the QM peer review process, and discusses the implementation of the Ohio QM Consortium (OQMC) as a shared services model. Findings – Given existing barriers to online learning, the QM program can improve learning outcomes by offering best practices in online course design, validating the quality of online courses, encouraging faculty buy-in through a focus on design rather than content, and facilitating degree completion through recognition of quality courses. Practical implications – Institutions that seek to validate online course quality in a cost-effective manner can explore a shared services model such as that developed by the OQMC. Originality/value – This paper introduces to an international audience a program and process, widely implemented in the USA, which encourages inter-institutional cooperation and promotes a supportive culture among online educators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document