scholarly journals Iranian Mental Health Researchers & Predatory Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-263
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Hossein Mahmoodi ◽  
◽  
Amir Hossein Jalali Nadoushan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Financial Gain

Predatory journals exploit open access publication method; they do not carry out the peer review process and editorial assessment properly and publish unassessed articles for financial gain. According to a recent investigation published in the Lancet Psychiatry Journal, about 20% of authors or co-authors of articles published in predatory psychiatric journals have been Iranian. This substantial contribution needs attention and seems to be compatible with previous studies inspecting involvement of other academics from Iran in predatory publications.

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 Editorial Note: Fast Peer Review: A Practice of Predatory Journals or Fair Treatment for Authors?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
On Line

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).

scholarly journals Debatt om røvertidsskrift

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-35
Author(s):  
Eva Sauvage ◽  
Siv Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals –a debate Introduction: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten revealed extensive problems with predatory publishing in an article that led to headlines in Norwegian news media in August 2018. Many were concerned about how the rise of open access journals had led to the growth of publishers with uncertain peer review processes, and worried about the consequences this may have for the public trust in science. A few weeks later, the Norwegian government joined the European Coalition S, which aims to mandate researchers who receive grants from the Research Council to publish in gold open access journals.  Method: Qualitative content analysis Results: Researchers are deeply concerned about public trust in science. The debate displayed a clearly either pro and con opinions towards open access publishing, and researchers are especially concerned about the peer review process. Some actors believe there is a strong connection between open access and predatory journals. Other actors blame the international competition and pressure to publish as a cause for the rise of predatory publishing. Some actors applaud the radical transformation of scientific publishing and of the peer review process, while others fear this development. Discussion: We discuss how this may affect research support at university libraries. Coalition S faced great opposition among the majority of Norwegian researchers, while the librarians who participated in the debate were in unison positive. The challenges of predatory publishers may intensify in the years to come with the introduction of Coalition S and a radical reorganization of scientific publishing. Conclusion: The debate shows that there is a clear need for a "white list" of peer-reviewed and quality-assured publishing channels, where the Nordic list is a good start.  Librarians have special expertise on metadata formats and knowledge about information literacy that can help researchers with quality assessment.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

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.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. e000580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Richtig ◽  
Erika Richtig ◽  
Alexandra Böhm ◽  
Christoph Oing ◽  
Farastuk Bozorgmehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Number Of Publications

IntroductionPredatory journals harm the integrity of science as principles of ‘good scientific practice’ are bypassed by omitting a proper peer-review process. Therefore, we aimed to explore the awareness of predatory journals among oncologists.MethodsAn online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-eight participants (55 women (29.2%), 128 men (68.1%)) completed the questionnaire. 41 (21.8%) participants indicated to work in a hospital, 24 (12.8%) in private practice and 112 (59.6%) in a university hospital. 98.9% of participants indicated to actively read scientific articles and consider them in clinical decision-making (96.3%). 90.4% of participants indicated to have scientific experience by publishing papers in journals with peer-review system. The open-access system was known by 170 (90.4%), predatory journals by 131 (69.7%) and Beall’s list by 52 participants (27.7%). Predatory journals were more likely to be known by participants with a higher number of publications (p<0.001), with more high-impact publications (p=0.005) and with recent publications (p<0.001). Awareness of predatory journals did not correlate with gender (p=0.515) or translation of scientific literature into clinical practice (p=0.543).ConclusionsThe problematic topic of ‘predatory journals’ is still unknown by a considerable amount of oncologist, although the survey was taken in a cohort of oncologists with scientific experience. Dedicated educational initiatives are needed to raise awareness of this problem and to aid in the identification of predatory journals for the scientific oncology community.

scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

scholarly journals Using Wikipedia to teach scholarly peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 178
Author(s):  
Paul Anthony Thomas ◽  
Matthew F Jones ◽  
Spencer G Mattingly
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
University Of Kansas ◽  
Related Literature ◽  
Biology Department ◽  
The World ◽  
The University

This paper outlines a creative Wikipedia-based project developed by the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries and the KU Biology Department. Inspired by the tenets of open pedagogy, the purpose of this project is to use Wikipedia as a way for students to learn about the scholarly peer review process while also producing material that can be shared and used by the world outside the classroom. The paper is divided into three sections, with the first summarizing pertinent related literature related to the paper’s topic. From here, the paper describes the proposed assignment, detailing a process wherein students write new articles for the encyclopedia which are then anonymously peer reviewed by other students in the class; when articles are deemed acceptable, they are published via Wikipedia. The parallels between this project and academic peer review are emphasized throughout. The paper closes by discussing the importance of this project, arguing that it fills a known scholarly need, actively produces knowledge, furthers the aims of the open access movement, and furthers scientific outreach initiatives.

scholarly journals A year in the life of eLife

eLife ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Schekman ◽  
Fiona M Watt ◽  
Detlef Weigel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
First Year ◽  
Biomedical Sciences

Improving the peer review process, overcoming the limitations of print journals and providing open access to the very best work in the life and biomedical sciences are three highlights of our first year.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document