scholarly journals Um ano de e-mails não solicitados: o modus operandi de revistas e editoras predatórias

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-81
Author(s):  
Fernanda Santos de Oliveira Sousa ◽  
Paulo Nadanovsky ◽  
Izabel Monteiro Dhyppolito ◽  
Ana Paula Pires dos Santos
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
National Library ◽  
Modus Operandi ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Mail Address ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Hospital Research

Objectives: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. Materials and methods: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. Results: A total of 2,812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1,837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1,751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1,837, 42%) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11% (201/1,837) of the e-mails, and 27% (504/1,837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. Conclusions: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ’ modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

scholarly journals Open Access Journals – The way forward for out-of-hospital research publications

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Healthcare Provider ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
General Community ◽  
Hospital Research

The open access journal is becoming a common place to publish compared to the traditional paper based journal as the work is readily available to the research and general community.  The academic community place a lot of emphasis on the quality and impact factor of journals.  There are numerous problems with this stance especially for academic paramedics and the general out-of-hospital healthcare provider.  Some in the academic community look upon open access journals as not being “proper” or “lacking in quality”. In the majority of instances this is not the case as the open access journals have comparable international editorial boards who oversee the manuscript handling processes.

scholarly journals The Directory of Open Access Journals covers more biomedical open access journals than other databases

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads S Liljekvist ◽  
Kristoffer Andresen ◽  
Hans-Christian Pommergaard ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
National Library ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Biomedical Databases

Background: Open access (OA) journals disseminate research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfil such databases’ criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database searchable at article level, focusing exclusively on OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ’s coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods: Information on all journals listed in five conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, National Library of Medicine, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were 1) actively publishing, 2) full OA, 3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and 4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results: In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7 % in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, only one had received an impact factor. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Conclusions: DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.

scholarly journals An Author’s Dilemma: Where to Publish?

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-59
Author(s):  
Raju Kafle
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
National Library ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Future Reference

Journals are the essence of scholarly communication. They not only serve to disseminate latest scientific advancements but also provide a platform for archiving scholarly information for future reference, and allow a researcher to assert his or her scientific caliber. Selecting the most suitable journal to showcase one’s scholarly work is no mean feat. With more than 43,000 biomedical journals listed with PubMed1, the database maintained by United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), this exercise can easily baffle an inexperienced researcher. The huge risk of rejection of a paper from a journal that is not the right fit, and a widening web of dubious and predatory journals which publish almost everything sent to them, make this task particularly daunting. You may think that getting your paper into a journal with the highest possible impact factor is your only concern. However, this makes sense only if you think that you will be judged solely on the journal your paper is in rather than the quality and actual impact of the work. Although journal name and impact factor are still used to judge papers (or even researchers), the problems with this approach are becoming more widely known.2 Within one journal, papers can vary enormously in their quality and citations so it is unfair to judge a single paper by the mean number of citations in a whole journal.

scholarly journals Predatory journals and publishers at a glance: take apart or take over?

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-50
Author(s):  
Meghit Boumediene Khaled ◽  
Mustapha Diaf
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Active Researcher ◽  
Multiple Copies ◽  
The University ◽  
E Mail

Have you ever received and been seduced by such attractive and flattering messages from editors? " .. Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this call for papers. This email is for Academic/Editorial information and not for commercial purposes. This e-mail was sent to you as an active researcher .." Or "… Already we contacted you earlier. Since we have not received any response from you, we are taking the liberty to resend the same regarding the submission of manuscript towards the Journal …..". The answer is obviously "Yes! ". Those beautiful messages come from a plethora of journals that have sprung up during the last few years, very talented to attract, becoming more and more annoying, under the name of "Predatory journals" as called by Beall, a librarian at Auraria Library and associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver, who compiled, from 2011 to January 2017, annual lists of potential, possible, or probably predatory scholarly open access journals

scholarly journals A Critical Appraisal of Predatory Journals in Pathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaman M AlAhmad ◽  
Ibrahim Abdelhafez ◽  
Farhan S Cyprian ◽  
Faruk Skenderi ◽  
Saghir Akhtar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals

Predatory or pseudo journals have recently come into focus due to their massive internet expansion and extensive spam email soliciting. Recent studies explored this urging problem in several biomedical disciplines. In the present study, we identified 69 potential predatory (pseudo) pathology journals that were contrasted to 89 legitimate pathology journals obtained from the major bibliographic databases. All potential predatory journals in pathology shared at least one of the features proposed by previous studies (e.g. a poor web-site integrity, submissions via email, unclear or ambiguous peer-review process, missing names of the editorial board members, missing or pending the journal ISSN). Twenty-one (30%) of the potential predatory pathology journals had misleading titles mimicking those of legitimate journals. Only one of the identified journals was listed in the Directory of Open Access journals whereas none (0%) was indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE or Web of Science, listed in the Committee on Publication Ethics nor have they had a legitimate impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports.

scholarly journals Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of “Academic Spam”

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237428951989885
Author(s):  
Kelly E. Wood ◽  
Matthew D. Krasowski
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Significant Volume ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
E Mail

This article presents an editorial perspective on the challenges associated with e-mail management for academic physicians. We include 2-week analysis of our own e-mails as illustrations of the e-mail volume and content. We discuss the contributors to high e-mail volumes, focusing especially on unsolicited e-mails from medical/scientific conferences and open-access journals (sometimes termed “academic spam emails”), as these e-mails comprise a significant volume and are targeted to physicians and scientists. Our 2-person sample is consistent with studies showing that journals that use mass e-mail advertising have low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one’s inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette. Academic institutions should focus on decreasing the volume of unsolicited e-mails, fostering tools to manage e-mail overload, and educating physicians including trainees about e-mail practices, predatory journals, and scholarly database/resources.

scholarly journals The Directory of Open Access Journals covers more biomedical open access journals than other databases

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads S Liljekvist ◽  
Kristoffer Andresen ◽  
Hans-Christian Pommergaard ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
National Library ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Biomedical Databases

Background: Open access (OA) journals disseminate research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfil such databases’ criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database searchable at article level, focusing exclusively on OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ’s coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods: Information on all journals listed in five conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, National Library of Medicine, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were 1) actively publishing, 2) full OA, 3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and 4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results: In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7 % in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, only one had received an impact factor. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Conclusions: DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.

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.

Effects and utility of an online forward triage tool during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: patient perspectives (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Michel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Patient Perspectives ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
Fear And Anxiety ◽  
Mail Address ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
E Mail

BACKGROUND Background: Online forward triage tools (OFTT) or symptom checkers are being widely used during this COVID-19 pandemic. The effects and utility of such tools however, have not been widely assessed. OBJECTIVE Objective: To assess the effects (quantitatively) and the utility (qualitatively) of a COVID-19 OFTT in a pandemic context, exploring patient perspectives as well as eliciting recommendations for tool improvement. METHODS Methods: We employed a mixed-method sequential explanatory study design. Quantitative data of all users of the OFTT between March 2nd, 2020 and May 12th, 2020 were collected. A follow-up survey of people who consented to participation was conducted. Secondly, qualitative data was collected through key informant interviews (n=19) to explain the quantitative findings, as well as explore tool utility, user experience and elicit recommendations. RESULTS Results: An estimate of the effects, (quantitatively) and the utility (qualitatively) of a COVID-19 OFTT in a pandemic context, and recommendations for tool improvement. In the study period, 6,272 users consulted our OFTT; 560 participants consented to a follow-up survey and provided a valid e-mail address. 176 (31.4%) participants returned a complete follow-up questionnaire. 85.2% followed the recommendations given. 41.5% reported that their fear was allayed after using tool and 41.1% would have contacted the GP or visited a hospital had the tool not existed. Qualitatively, seven overarching themes emerged namely i) accessibility of tool, ii) user-friendliness of tool, iii) utility of tool as an information source, iv) utility of tool in allaying fear and anxiety, v) utility of tool in decision making (test or not to test), vi) utility of tool in reducing the potential for onward transmissions (preventing cross infection) and vii) utility of tool in reducing health system burden. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that a COVID-19 OFTT does not only reduce the health system burden, but can also serve as an information source, reduce anxiety and fear, reduce cross infections and facilitate decision making (to test or not to test). Further studies are needed to assess the transferability of these COVID-19 OFTT findings to other contexts as the second wave sweeps across Europe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document