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 Early Career Researchers between Predatory Publishing and Academic Excellence: The Views and Behaviours of the Millennials

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-65
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Anthony Watkinson ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Academic Excellence ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Predatory Publishing

The paper draws on evidence of predatory publishing obtained from the 4 year-long Harbingers research study of the changing scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). The project featured longitudinal interviews for its first 3 years with 116 ECRs researching science and social sciences who came from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK and USA. The interview data provided the building blocks for a questionnaire survey in the 4th year, which obtained 1600 responses from a global audience, which included arts and humanities ECRs and those from Russia. These studies investigated predatory publishing as part of general questioning about scholarly communications, in other words, in context. The main finding from the interview study were: 1) ECRs generally do not publish in predatory journals; 2) they only allude to them lightly and mainly in the context of open access publishing; 3) they no longer acquaint all open access publishing with predatory journals. The questionnaire found that, as in the case of the interviews, complaints that open access is low quality publishing are diminishing, however, this positivity has been partly offset by increased concerns about the dangers of predatory journals.

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 Hype or Real Threat: The Extent of Predatory Journals in Student Bibliographies

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Rainer Schira ◽  
Chris Hurst
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
University Students ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory publishing has risen with the development of open access publishing. This study examines how many potential predatory journals were used by Brandon University students by analyzing their bibliographies. In total, 245 bibliographies including 2,359 citations were analyzed. Of the 1,485 citations to journals in these citations, five were found to cite journals on Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. The probable sources of these journals in the students’ bibliographies were examined.

scholarly journals Predatory Publishing: How to Safely Navigate the Waters of Open Access

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Power
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
The Public ◽  
Know How ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers

Open access publishing enables scholarship to be openly accessible to everyone, which has countless benefits. However, the open access movement has opened the door for “predatory publishers” to take advantage of researchers surviving in this publish or perish academic landscape. Predatory journals are becoming increasingly common. Nursing researchers, instructors, and students need to be made aware of the dangers of predatory journals, and they need to know how to identify them. While there are blacklists and whitelists that can be used to aid in decision-making, it is critical to note that these lists can never be entirely up to date. This article incorporates a literature review which provides insights into newer trends in predatory and unethical publishing, including “journal hijacking” and “bogus impact factors”. Extensive criteria for assessing emerging or unknown journals is compiled to aid researchers, students, educators, and the public in evaluating open access publications.

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 Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

scholarly journals How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Career Progression ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document