scholarly journals Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Beall

‘Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to understanding our potential.’ Margaret J Wheatley The focus of any academic or research author is to share his or her findings, and to gain respect and reward for publishing. The ideal journal is one that not only publishes an article quickly but also helps the author to improve the article before publication through peer review, selects only the best research so that the author’s article lies alongside other high quality articles, and provides maximum (and long-term) visibility and access to the article. Unfortunately, in the real world, authors need to make tradeoffs between high quality journals, those that work quickly, those that are willing to accept the article and those that provide the best access. Into this mix has come the potential of open access as a means of increasing visibility: journals publish the article without a subscription barrier so anyone, anywhere, can read the article. However, the growth of open access (pushed by institutions, grant bodies and governments as a means of improving human health and knowledge) has come with some unforeseen consequences. In this article, Jeffrey Beall discusses one recent phenomenon that has arisen from the open access movement: that of ‘predatory publishers’. These are individuals or companies that use the open access financial system (author pays, rather than library subscribes) to defraud authors and readers by promising reputable publishing platforms but delivering nothing of the sort. They frequently have imaginary editorial boards, do not operate any peer review or quality control, are unclear about payment requirements and opaque about ownership or location, include plagiarised content and publish whatever somebody will pay them to publish. Predatory publishers generally make false promises to authors and behave unethically. They also undermine the scholarly information and publishing environment with a deluge of poor quality, unchecked and invalidated articles often published on temporary sites, thus losing the scholarly record. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian in Denver, US, has watched the rise of such fraudulent practice, and manages a blog site that names publishers and journals that he has identified as predatory. While Beall’s lists can provide librarians and knowledgeable authors with information on which journals and publishers to be cautious about, several legitimate publishers, library groups and others have joined forces to educate and inform authors in what to look for when selecting journals to publish in (or read). This initiative, called Think. Check. Submit. (http://thinkchecksubmit.org/), was launched in the latter half of 2015 and hopes to raise awareness of disreputable journals while clearly separating them from valid, high quality, open access journals (of which there are many). PIPPA SMART Guest Editor

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

Predatory publishers and journals aim to make as much money as possible from researchers using the author-pays publishing model. Though most claim to manage a proper peer review, the practice of rejecting papers for publication is contrary to their business model of maximizing revenue through author fees. Accordingly, predatory publishers frequently accept and publish articles presenting pseudo-science dressed up as legitimate research. This chapter analyzes the increasing occurrence of pseudo-science being published in predatory open-access journals.


Author(s):  
Bernard Montoneri

This chapter discusses the literature on plagiarism and aims at helping readers better understand what plagiarism is, what is at stake, and how to fight intellectual dishonesty. First, it is essential to define plagiarism and to present the historical background related to academic malpractice. Since the advent of the internet, the number of cases of plagiarism has increased exponentially. Many websites overtly encourage acts of cheating and plagiarism, offer or sell programs designed to copy, generate, and even buy assignments and academic papers. The growing number of retracted documents, not only in open access journals but also in journals owned by major publishers, is disturbing. This chapter will notably discuss the rise and thrive of “predatory” publishers, the growth of fake papers, the abuse of fake positive peer review, and the disturbing success of contract cheating. Finally, it should be noted that even though academic malpractice is damaging the reputation of the scientific community, many solutions have been proposed and implemented.


2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (06) ◽  
pp. 481-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Kuballa ◽  
Mareike Schulze ◽  
Claudia Böhm ◽  
Olaf Gefeller ◽  
Jan Haaf ◽  
...  

SummaryBackground: Based on today‘s information and communication technologies the open access paradigm has become an important approach for adequately communicating new scientific knowledge.Objectives: Summarizing the present situa -tion for journal transformation. Presenting criteria for adequate transformation as well as a specific approach for it. Describing our exemplary implementation of such a journal transformation.Methods: Studying the respective literature as well as discussing this topic in various discussion groups and meetings (primarily of editors and publishers, but also of authors and readers), with long term experience as editors and /or publishers of scientific publications as prerequisite.Results: There is a clear will, particularly of political and funding organizations, towards open access publishing. In spite of this, there is still a large amount of scientific knowl edge, being communicated through subscription-based journals. For successfully transforming such journals into open access, sixteen criteria for a goal-oriented, stepwise, sustainable, and fair transformation are suggested. The Tandem Model as transformation approach is introduced. Our exemplary implementation is done in the Trans-O-MIM project. It is exploring strategies, models and evaluation metrics for journal transforma tion. As instance the journal Methods of Information in Medicine will apply the Tandem Model from 2017 onwards.Conclusions: Within Trans-O-MIM we will reach at least nine of the sixteen criteria for adequate transformation. It was positive to implement Trans-O-MIM as international research project. After first steps for transforming Methods have successfully been made, challenges will remain, among others, in identifying appropriate incentives for open access publishing in order to support its transformation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 609 ◽  
pp. A92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodosios Chatzistergos ◽  
Ilaria Ermolli ◽  
Sami K. Solanki ◽  
Natalie A. Krivova

Context. Historical Ca II K spectroheliograms (SHG) are unique in representing long-term variations of the solar chromospheric magnetic field. They usually suffer from numerous problems and lack photometric calibration. Thus accurate processing of these data is required to get meaningful results from their analysis. Aims. In this paper we aim at developing an automatic processing and photometric calibration method that provides precise and consistent results when applied to historical SHG. Methods. The proposed method is based on the assumption that the centre-to-limb variation of the intensity in quiet Sun regions does not vary with time. We tested the accuracy of the proposed method on various sets of synthetic images that mimic problems encountered in historical observations. We also tested our approach on a large sample of images randomly extracted from seven different SHG archives. Results. The tests carried out on the synthetic data show that the maximum relative errors of the method are generally <6.5%, while the average error is <1%, even if rather poor quality observations are considered. In the absence of strong artefacts the method returns images that differ from the ideal ones by <2% in any pixel. The method gives consistent values for both plage and network areas. We also show that our method returns consistent results for images from different SHG archives. Conclusions. Our tests show that the proposed method is more accurate than other methods presented in the literature. Our method can also be applied to process images from photographic archives of solar observations at other wavelengths than Ca II K.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (6/7) ◽  
pp. 550-567
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Sangita Gupta ◽  
Tariq Ahmad Shah ◽  
Nahida Tun Nisa ◽  
Shazia Manzoor ◽  
...  

Purpose Open access journals (OAJs) offer immediate, free and unrestricted online access to the scholarly literature. The purpose of this study is to trace the status and characteristics of OAJs published across the globe. Various trends that have evolved in OAJ market have been studied. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on data collected from one of the largest OA journal directory – Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The data were downloaded on 02 January 2018 and details of OAJs added to DOAJ till 31 December 2018 were harvested, codified and further analyzed in SPSS software. A Microsoft-Excel template application – MAKESENS – developed by Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland) in 2002, was explored to perform Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates. Findings A less score of OAJs offer access to their archival content. An increasing trend is witnessed in the OAJ publishing with Elsevier, Sciendo and BioMed Central (BMC) as the top publishers. Majority of publishers are from high-income zone countries, followed by upper-middle and lower-middle zone countries. Majority of OA publishers are from the UK, Indonesia and Brazil. A lesser score of journals offer article processing charges and/or author submission charges. Majority of OAJs from high- and lower-middle-income zone countries levy submission/processing charge to authors compared to OA journals from upper-middle- and lower-income zone countries (p < 0.01). OJS stays a prioritized platform for hosting OA journal content. Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS are mostly used for long-term preservation purposes. Majority of OAJs from high-income zone countries participate in digital arching initiatives compared to ones from other income zones. Majority of the journals adopt a peer review (double-blind peer review, blind peer review, peer review and open peer review) process for validation of their scholarly content. The time lag between submission and publication ranges from one to 53 weeks, with majority of OAJs having a time lag of 11-20 weeks. Creative Commons Licenses are mainly adopted by OAJs. Research limitations/implications As the study is based on the data offered by DOAJ, any gaps in the DOAJ data will also get reflected in the study. Further, there might be other OAJs also that have yet to show compliance with DOAJ standards and get indexed with it. Originality/value The study tries to showcase the current status and characteristics of OAJs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Peter Willett ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
...  

Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.


Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen

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.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Cutler ◽  
Tormod Strømme ◽  
Irene Eikefjord

See video of the presentation.In 2013 The University of Bergen established a publication fund to cover the costs for publishing Open Access. The fund covers Article Processing Charges (APC) in both Open Access journals and hybrid Open Access in subscription journals. The publication fund at The University of Bergen is one of few in Norway that includes support for hybrid Open Access. The hybrid model is controversial because the publisher receives income twice for the same article, first through APC and then through subscriptions.The arguments for including hybrid were: (1) there are more journals to choose from, hence giving more researchers the opportunity and initiative to publish Open Access. (2) the quality issue of Open Access journals. The University believed that by including hybrid more articles would be published Open Access in renowned journals. This because a larger percentage of hybrid journals are registered on level 2 in the Norwegian System for defining quality of publication channels.The fund has been a success in so far that it has led to an increase in Open Access articles in high quality journals, also within research fields that traditionally do not publish Open Access. The fund has granted applications for almost 9 million NOK. Of a total of 437 granted applications, 278 (64 %) are articles in hybrid journals. 103 articles (24 %) have been published on level 2; 11 in Open Access-journals and 92 hybrid.When it comes to research field, the results show that about 90 % of granted applications come from researchers within medicine, psychology and the natural sciences, including many fields that already have a tradition for publishing their research Open Access. The fund has only led to a slight increase in Open Access publishing with APC within the humanities, social sciences and law.Researchers are happy with hybrid publishing because they are able to continue publishing in the same journals as before. It is also the case that support of hybrid publishing results in more Open Access articles in high quality journals according to the Norwegian system. Yet, support for hybrid publishing has so far not altered which research fields that publish Open Access, although there has been an increase of Open Access publications within all faculties.Our presentation will form a basis for discussing a number of questions pertaining to the hybrid model: What have the academic and economic consequences of the hybrid model been? Do all researchers at the University have the same opportunity to publish their research Open Access? Has support of hybrid lead to more Open Access in renowned publication channels?The University has appointed a group to evaluate the publication fund and recommend if and how it shall continue. Will the fund continue to support hybrid after the trial period ends in 2015?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document