How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-81
Author(s):  
Lenche Danevska ◽  
Mirko Spiroski ◽  
Doncho Donev ◽  
Nada Pop-Jordanova ◽  
Momir Polenakovic
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Easy Method ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Digital Repositories ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Academic Librarian ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction. The Internet has enabled an easy method to search through the vast majority of publications and has improved the impact of scholarly journals. However, it can also pose threats to the quality of published articles. New publishers and journals have emerged so-called open-access potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and journals, and so-called hijacked journals. It was our aim to increase awareness and warn scholars, especially young researchers, how to recognize these journals and how to avoid submission of their papers to these journals. Methods. Review and critical analysis of the relevant published literature, Internet sources and personal experience, thoughts, and observations of the authors. Results. The web blog of Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado, was greatly consulted. Jeffrey Beall is a Denver academic librarian who regularly maintains two lists: the first one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and the second one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory standalone journals. Aspects related to this topic presented by other authors have been discussed as well. Conclusion. Academics should bear in mind how to differentiate between trustworthy and reliable journals and predatory ones, considering: publication ethics, peer-review process, international academic standards, indexing and abstracting, preservation in digital repositories, metrics, sustainability, etc.

scholarly journals How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals

PRILOZI ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenche Danevska ◽  
Mirko Spiroski ◽  
Doncho Donev ◽  
Nada Pop-Jordanova ◽  
Momir Polenakovic
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Easy Method ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Digital Repositories ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Academic Librarian ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction and aim: The Internet has enabled an easy method to search through the vast majority of publications and has improved the impact of scholarly journals. However, it can also pose threats to the quality of published articles. New publishers and journals have emerged so-called open-access potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and journals, and so-called hijacked journals. It was our aim to increase the awareness and warn scholars, especially young researchers, how to recognize these journals and how to avoid submission of their papers to these journals. Methods: Review and critical analysis of the relevant published literature, Internet sources and personal experience, thoughts, and observations of the authors. Results: The web blog of Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado, was greatly consulted. Jeffrey Beall is a Denver academic librarian who regularly maintains two lists: the first one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and the second one, of potential, possible, or probable predatory standalone journals. Aspects related to this topic presented by other authors have been discussed as well. Conclusion: Academics should bear in mind how to differentiate between trustworthy and reliable journals and predatory ones, considering: publication ethics, peer-review process, international academic standards, indexing and abstracting, preservation in digital repositories, metrics, sustainability, etc.

scholarly journals Impact and visibility of Norwegian, Finnish and Spanish journals in the fields of humanities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elías Sanz-Casado ◽  
Daniela De Filippo ◽  
Rafael Aleixandre Benavent ◽  
Vidar Røeggen ◽  
Janne Pölönen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Homogeneous Distribution ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Vernacular Language ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Language And Literature ◽  
National Languages ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Scimago Journal Rank

AbstractThis article analyses the impact and visibility of scholarly journals in the humanities that are publishing in the national languages in Finland, Norway and Spain. Three types of publishers are considered: commercial publishers, scholarly society as publisher, and research organizations as publishers. Indicators of visibility and impact were obtained from Web of Science, SCOPUS, Google Metrics, Scimago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report. The findings compiled show that in Spain the categories “History and Archaeology” and “Language and Literature” account for almost 70% of the journals analysed, while the other countries offer a more homogeneous distribution. In Finland, the scholarly society publisher is predominant, in Spain, research organization as publishers, mostly universities, have a greater weighting, while in Norway, the commercial publishers take centre stage. The results show that journals from Finland and Norway will have reduced possibilities in terms of impact and visibility, since the vernacular language appeals to a smaller readership. Conversely, the Spanish journals are more attractive for indexing in commercial databases. Distribution in open access ranges from 64 to 70% in Norwegian and Finish journals, and to 91% in Spanish journals. The existence of DOI range from 31 to 41% in Nordic journals to 60% in Spanish journals and has a more widespread bearing on the citations received in all three countries (journals with DOI and open access are cited more frequently).

scholarly journals Computational Semantics in Clinical Text Supplement

2013 ◽  
Vol 6s1 ◽  
pp. BII.S11868
Author(s):  
John P. Pestian
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Biomedical Informatics ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Computational Semantics ◽  
Clinical Text ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Impact

As scientists, we create and disseminate knowledge. Resources from various benefactors open the doors of discovery. Likewise, we are obliged to disseminate our finding where they will have an impact. We want our thoughts and words to be heard. Yet, neither creation nor dissemination of newfound knowledge is easy. Some facts are more stubborn than others; prying them loose and describing them takes effort and discipline. In the 1980's some of challenges to dissemination were reduced when open-access journals emerged. While the hallowed peer-review process remained, these journals provided access to knowledge without financial, legal or technical constraints to the reader. They provided an innovative venue to disseminate findings by using the world wide web as the main source of distribution. 1 The impact of these journals is growing. In 2000 there were 740 open-access journals that produced 19,500 articles. In 2009, this grew to 4769 journals and 191,850 articles; this represents 20% of scholarly publications. 2 In the open access world, the journal increasingly assumes the distribution role formerly undertaken by institutional libraries, while maintaining essential editorial quality. Intuitively, the increased accessibility of open access journals ought to lead to a greater number of citations. Numerous studies have verified this. 3 Multiple studies have shown that articles published in an open access journal are referenced more frequently than those published elsewhere. 3 , 4 I acknowledge that other factors influence whether a paper is cited aside from its publication in an open access journal: it must be widely accessible through the channels that researchers employ and–-at the risk of making a trite argument–-the paper must have sufficient merit to justify being cited. All of this supports the emerging importance of Biomedical Informatics Insights as a vehicle for disseminating scientific findings. In this special issue we present a second series of conference proceedings. The first, Sentiment Analysis of Suicide Notes: A Shared Task, 5 produced over 20 manuscripts and was published soon after the conference. This issue reviews the scientific productivity of the first Computational Semantics in Clinical Text conference. This conference, chaired by Drs. Stephen Wu, Nigam Shah, and Kevin Bretonnel Cohen is described elsewhere, but it is an honor for Biomedical Informatics Insights to be the repository of the proceedings.

scholarly journals Spanish Scholarly Journals in WoS and Scopus: The Impact of Open Access

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Abadal ◽  
Remedios Melero ◽  
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues ◽  
Miguel Navas-Fernández
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Predatory Journals: A Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Zouina Sarfraz ◽  
Azza Sarfraz ◽  
Ammar Anwer ◽  
Zainab Nadeem ◽  
Shehar Bano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Boolean Logic ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
The Impact

Background: Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model. Most predatory journals do not follow policies that are set forth by organizations including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and a librarian at Auraria Library, coined the term ‘predatory journals’ to describe pseudo-journals. Our literature review has highlighted that predatory journal authorship is not limited to early-career researchers only. Majority of authors are unfamiliar with practices in pseudo journals despite publishing manuscripts. Methodology: For the purpose of this review, a systematic literature search was carried in October 2019 of the following databases: (1) Web of Science (all databases), (2) ERIC, and (3) LISTA. All stages of the review process included access to the search results and full articles for review and consequent analysis. Articles were added after screening fulltext articles by meeting the inclusion criteria and meeting none of the exclusion criteria. As there were a high number of articles reporting findings on predatory journals, they were further screened re-evaluating them for any deviations from the theme of this study. Relevant material published within the last five years was used. Results: After a thorough review, 63,133 were located using the Boolean logic. After reviewing 63 abstracts and titles for relevance, 9 articles were included in the literature review. Four themes are concerned with the results of the synthesis that demarcate legitimate and predatory publications. They include factors: (1) Related to the journal, (2) Academic and professional, (3) Dissemination, and (4) Personal. Conclusion: Our literature review found that there is a lack of one single definition for predatory journals. We believe that it is essential for potential authors and young researchers to have clear guidelines and make demarcations of potential journals that seem dubious. Moreover, the authors’ selection of publishers should be modified to control the risks of tainting ‘open-access’ publishing with fraudulent journals. The academic and research community ought to revise their criteria and recognize high quality and author journals as opposed to ‘predatory’ journals. Research mentorship, realigning research incentives, and education is vital to decrease the impact of predatory publishing in the near future.

scholarly journals The impact of open access publishing (and other access initiatives) on use and users of digital scholarly journals

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
David NICHOLAS ◽  
Paul HUNTINGTON ◽  
Hamid R. JAMALI
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The early bird uses bioRxiv: The impact of career stage on the usage of preprints in ecology and evolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Wolf ◽  
Layla MacKay ◽  
Sarah Haworth ◽  
Marie-Laurence Cossette ◽  
Morgan Dedato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Marginal Effect ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Impact

The usage of preprint servers in ecology and evolution is increasing, as it allows for research to be rapidly disseminated and available through open access at no cost. This is relevant for Early Career Researchers (ECRs), who must demonstrate research ability for funding opportunities, scholarships, grants, or faculty positions in short temporal windows in order to advance their careers. Concurrently, limited experience with the peer review process can make it challenging for those who are in the early stages of their research career to build publication records. Therefore, ECRs face different challenges relative to researchers with permanent positions and established research programs and have different requirements in terms of research output and timelines. These challenges might also vary according to institution size and country, which are associated with the availability of funding for open access journals. Herein, we hypothesize that career stage and institution size impact relative usage of preprint servers among researchers in ecology and evolution. Using data collected from 500 articles (100 from each of two open access journals, two closed access journals, and a preprint server), we demonstrate that ECRs generate more preprints relative to non-ECRs, for both first and last authors. We speculate that this pattern is reflective of the advantages of quick and open access research that is disproportionately beneficial to ECRs. There is also a marginal effect of first author institution size on preprint usage, whereby the number of preprints tends to increase with institution size for ECRs, although the interaction between ECR status and institution size was not significant. The United States and United Kingdom contributed the greatest number of preprints by early career researchers, whereas non-western countries contributed relatively fewer preprints. This research provides empirical evidence regarding motivations of preprint usage and barriers surrounding large-scale adoption of preprinting in ecology and evolution.

scholarly journals Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”

2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (11) ◽  
pp. 603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shea Swauger
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Full Disclosure ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Opinion Piece ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
The University

In June 2017, Jeffrey Beall published an opinion piece in Biochemia Medica titled “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.”1 While there are several elements of this publication that I find inaccurate or problematic, I’m choosing four specific themes within his piece to critique. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Jeffrey Beall’s direct supervisor at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Auraria Library and have been since I began working there in July 2015.

PEDAGOGY AND MODERN EDUCATION (ICPME) September 2019: сб.науч.тр./ RELF Group & OEAPS Inc.; редкол.: Каапо Кумпулайнен (отв.ред.) [и др.]. - Варшава, Польша : OEAPS Inc., 09. 2019. - 114 С. ISBN: 978-1697070392

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Гульдар Фанисовна Ибрагимова ◽  
Ольга Алексеевна Ковалевич ◽  
Раиса Николаевна Афонина ◽  
Елена Алексеевна Лесных ◽  
Яна Игоревна Ряполова ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
European Academy ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Authorship Credit ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Article Processing Charges

Conference paper Covered by Leading Indexing DatabasesOpen European Academy of Public Sciences aims to have all of its journals covered by the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Scopus and Web of Science indexing systems. Several journals have already been covered by SCIE for several years and have received official Impact Factors. Some life sciencerelated journals are also covered by PubMed/MEDLINE and archived through PubMed Central (PMC). All of our journals are archived with the Spanish and Germany National Library.All Content is Open Access and Free for Readers Journals published by Open European Academy of Public Sciences are fully open access: research articles, reviews or any other content on this platform is available to everyone free of charge. To be able to provide open access journals, we finance publication through article processing charges (APC); these are usually covered by the authors’ institutes or research funding bodies. We offer access to science and the latest research to readers for free. All of our content is published in open access and distributed under a Creative Commons License, which means published articles can be freely shared and the content reused, upon proper attribution.Open European Academy of Public Sciences Publication Ethics StatementOpen European Academy of Public Sciences is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peerreview together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use iThenticate to check submissions against previous publications.Mission and ValuesAs a pioneer of academic open access publishing, we serve the scientific community since 2009. Our aim is to foster scientific exchange in all forms, across all disciplines. In addition to being at the root of Open European Academy of Public Sciences and a key theme in our journals, we support sustainability by ensuring the longterm preservation of published papers, and the future of science through partnerships, sponsorships and awards.

scholarly journals European Youth Work Policy and Young People’s Experience of Open Access Youth Work

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
JON ORD ◽  
MARC CARLETTI ◽  
DANIELE MORCIANO ◽  
LASSE SIURALA ◽  
CHRISTOPHE DANSAC ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Young People ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Youth Work ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
European Youth

Abstract This article examines young people’s experiences of open access youth work in settings in the UK, Finland, Estonia, Italy and France. It analyses 844 individual narratives from young people, which communicate the impact of youthwork on their lives. These accounts are then analysed in the light of the European youth work policy goals. It concludes that it is encouraging that what young people identify as the positive impact of youth work are broadly consistent with many of these goals. There are however some disparities which require attention. These include the importance young people place on the social context of youth work, such as friendship, which is largely absent in EU youth work policy; as well as the importance placed on experiential learning. The paper also highlights a tension between ‘top down’ policy formulation and the ‘youth centric’ practices of youth work. It concludes with a reminder to policy makers that for youth work to remain successful the spaces and places for young people must remain meaningful to them ‘on their terms’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document