第10回　Predatory journals and how to identify themハゲタカジャーナルの見分け方(Tips for Academic Publishingアクセプトに繋げる論文投稿&学術出版の豆知識)

2020 ◽  
Vol 123 (1223) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Kakoli Majumder
Keyword(s):  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

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 Too Much Academic Research Is Being Published

2018 ◽  
pp. 2-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip G. Altbach ◽  
Hans De Wit
Keyword(s):  
Small Groups ◽  
Research Universities ◽  
Distribution System ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Global Knowledge ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Rich Countries

There is a crisis in academic publishing and in the global knowledge-distribution system in general—there is too much pressure on top journals, there are too many books and articles of marginal quality, predatory journals are on the rise, and there is a tremendous pressure on academics worldwide to publish. We propose recognizing that most universities and most academics, globally, focus on teaching, and that the large majority of universities acknowledge their important roles as teaching-focused and do not seek to become research-intensive institutions. We call for quality, but also for control of what quality is, by the academic community instead of by nonacademic rankers, publishers, and citation and impact measurers. Quality—not quantity—should be the objective, in combination with an effort to bring quality control back into the academic community—while making sure that that control is not dominated by small groups in research universities in the rich countries. 

scholarly journals Academic Publishing and «Predatory» Journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Strielkowski ◽  
◽  
I. Gryshova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals

scholarly journals A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements

2021 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jaime Α. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Gray Zone ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
Author Identification ◽  
Fail Safe ◽  
Peer Reports

The mainstream publishing establishment is under attack from multiple known and unknown forces. This is neither hyperbole nor fantasy. Many academics may believe that the main threat lies with “predatory” journals or publishers, but this is not necessarily the case because such entities are not always easy to distinguish clearly from veritable scholarly journals or publishers. Moreover, there is a gray zone that may involve both predatory and exploitative qualities. Current submission systems are not fail-safe because they allow unscholarly or fraudulent elements to register and abuse them, for example for submitting fake research or falsified peer reports, while author identification tools like ORCID are imperfect and provide a platform for similar-minded individuals to “validate” themselves. This toxic mix of tools aimed at fortifying integrity, while allowing fake authors to breed, currently without many, or any, ethical or legal repercussions will rapidly erode the entire publishing landscape if serious legal action is not taken. The creation of fake papers by fake authors will eventually trickle down into valid literature, by virtue of the fact that cited literature cannot be thoroughly vetted, even in peer review. The integrity of valid scholarly venues is thus at high risk unless suitable, strict and ethically and legally enforceable preventative measures are implemented.

scholarly journals Academic Publishing and «Predatory» Journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12
Author(s):  
W. Strielkowski ◽  
◽  
I. Gryshova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals

The Rise of Predatory Publishing: How To Avoid Being Scammed

Weed Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
On Line ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Customer Model ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Editorial Decisions

The rise of on-line open access (OA) has profound implications for academic publishing, not least the shift from subscribers to authors as the primary transactional partners for peer-reviewed journals. Although OA offers many benefits, it also paves the way for predatory publishers, who exploit the author-as-customer model to obtain revenue from author fees while providing few of the editorial services associated with academic publishing. Predatory journals publish papers with little or no peer review, and often disguise their real geographical location while exaggerating their scope and editorial expertise. Such journals also attempt to attract authors by promising unrealistically rapid editorial decisions while falsely claiming peer review, and fabricating impact factors and inclusion in academic indexes. The explosive increase in predatory OA journals is not only a risk to inexperienced authors, but also threatens to undermine the OA model and the legitimate communication of research.

scholarly journals Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cukier ◽  
Manoj M. Lalu ◽  
Gregory L. Bryson ◽  
Kelly D. Cobey ◽  
Agnes Grudniewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Educational Outreach ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Consensus Definition ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
International Group ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Definition Of

ABSTRACTBackgroundPosing as legitimate open access outlets, predatory journals and publishers threaten the integrity of academic publishing by not following publication best practices. Currently, there is no agreed upon definition of predatory journals, making it difficult for funders and academic institutions to generate practical guidance or policy to ensure their members do not publish in these channels.MethodsWe conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey of an international group of academics, funders, policy makers, journal editors, publishers and others, to generate a consensus definition of predatory journals and suggested ways the research community should respond to the problem.ResultsA total of 45 participants completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33, to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a ‘one-stop-shop’ website to consolidate information on the topic and a ‘predatory journal research observatory’ to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers.ConclusionsIn bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document