scholarly journals Authors beware! Publishing in predatory journals is harmful

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jiban Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Paper ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Global Challenge ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Harmful Effects

Predatory publishing is now rapidly growing and becoming a global challenge to scientific communities. Predatory publications pose a danger that could undermine the quality, integrity, and reliability of published scientific research works. They harm the career of those authors who published on them. The researchers should be aware of the quality of journals while publishing their research results. In this review, we briefly summarize the ways to spot out predatory publications, their harmful effects, and strategies to stop them. Authors should know the lists of predatory journals/publishers which are available on Beall’s list on the internet. Predatory journals take advantage of authors by asking them to publish for a fee without providing peer-review or editing services. The young and inexperienced authors are easy victims of predatory publications.  The predatory publications are worthless, just a waste of time, resources, money, and efforts. The objective of this review paper was to create awareness about predatory journals among researchers and scholars.

scholarly journals The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Cited

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

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.

Predatory publishing and the Ghana experience: A call to action for information professionals

IFLA Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kodjo Atiso ◽  
Jenna Kammer ◽  
Jenny Bossaller
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Research Scientists

Researchers in developing countries are more likely to publish in predatory journals (Xia et al., 2015). This study investigates the understanding that research scientists in Ghana, a developing country, have about predatory journals and their publishing practices. Using a mixed methods approach, research scientists within one cluster of research organizations in Ghana were asked about their awareness of the characteristics of predatory journals, based on their own experience as a researcher. Their publications were also examined. The results indicate that most of the research scientists in this study are aware of predatory journals and are often solicited by them, but are less aware of tools they can use to determine the quality of a particular publication. In addition, 12% of the articles published that make up 24% of the unique journals in which these researchers published could be considered “predatory”. The findings of this research are significant because they indicate that research scientists may have more awareness of predatory journals than is expected, but that they may lack the training or tools necessary for deciding whether or not a journal is legitimate.

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.

scholarly journals THE EFFECTS OF PREDATORY JOURNALS ON QUALITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Access Model

Predatory journals as defined by Beall in 2012 are publishers “which publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays” and also publishers that were “dishonest and lack transparency”. Any journal accepts the manuscript without any real and deep evaluation by reviewers are considered as predatory journals. In recent years, many predatory journals have been published worldwide in many research fields. Unfortunately, some of them found in the big and trustable research databases.

scholarly journals Mechanisms for QoE optimisation of Video Traffic: A review paper

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
qahhar muhammad qadir ◽  
Alexander A. Kist ◽  
ZHONGWEI ZHANG
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Experience ◽  
Review Paper ◽  
End Users ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Video Traffic ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Increasing Demand

Transmission of video traffic over the Internet has grown exponentially in the past few years<br>with no sign of waning. This increasing demand for video services has changed user expectation of quality. Various mechanisms have been proposed to optimise the Quality of Experience (QoE) of end users’ video. Studying these approaches are necessary for new methods to be proposed or combination of existing ones to be tailored. We discuss challenges facing the optimisation of QoE for video traffic in this paper. It surveys and classifies these mechanisms based on their functions. The limitation of each of them is identified and future directions are highlighted.

scholarly journals Mechanisms for QoE optimisation of Video Traffic: A review paper

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qahhar Muhammad Qadir
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Experience ◽  
Review Paper ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Video Traffic ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Video Services ◽  
Increasing Demand

Transmission of video traffic over the Internet has grown exponentially in the past few years with no sign of waning. This increasing demand for video services has changed user expectation of quality. Various mechanisms have been proposed to optimise Quality of Experience (QoE) of end user's video. Studying these approaches are necessary for new methods to be proposed or combination of existing ones to be tailored. We discuss challenges facing the optimisation of QoE for video traffic in this paper. It surveys and classifies these mechanisms based on their functions. The limitation of each of them is identified and future directions are highlighted.

scholarly journals "Blacklists" and "whitelists" to tackle predatory publishing : A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Strinzel ◽  
Anna Severin ◽  
Katrin Milzow ◽  
Matthias Egger
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Quality Aspects ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Background. Despite growing awareness of predatory publishing and research on its market characteristics, the defining attributes of fraudulent journals remain controversial. We aimed to develop a better understanding of quality criteria for scholarly journals by analysing journals and publishers indexed in blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals and the lists’ inclusion criteria. Methods. We searched for blacklists and whitelists in early 2018. Lists that included journals across disciplines were eligible. We used a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses. To quantify overlaps between lists in terms of indexed journals and publishers we employed the Jaro-Winkler string metric and Venn diagrams. To identify topics addressed by the lists’ inclusion criteria and to derive their broader conceptual categories, we used a qualitative coding approach. Results. Two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s) and two whitelists (DOAJ and Cabell’s) were eligible. The number of journals per list ranged from 1404 to 12357 and the number of publishers from 473 to 5638. Seventy-three journals and 42 publishers were included both in a blacklist and whitelist. A total of 198 inclusion criteria were examined. Seven thematic themes were identified: (i) peer review, (ii) editorial services, (iii) policy, (iv) business practices, (v) publishing, archiving and access, (vi) website and (vii) indexing and metrics. Business practices accounted for almost half of blacklists’ criteria, whereas whitelists gave more emphasis to criteria related to policy and guidelines. Criteria were grouped into four broad concepts: (i) transparency, (ii) ethics, (iii) professional standards and (iv) peer review and other services. Whitelists gave more weight to transparency whereas blacklists focused on ethics and professional standards. The criteria included in whitelists were easier to verify than those used in blacklists. Both types of list gave relatively little emphasis to the quality of peer review. Conclusions. There is overlap between journals and publishers included in blacklists and whitelists. Blacklists and whitelists differ in their criteria for quality and the weight given to different dimensions of quality. Aspects that are central but difficult to verify receive insufficient attention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document