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

Author(s):  
Meghit Boumediene Khaled ◽  
Mustapha Diaf

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

Author(s):  
Heidi Zuniga ◽  
Lilian Hoffecker

The authors describe the process and results of an ongoing Open Access Fund program at the Health Sciences Library of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.  The fund has helped students and other early career researchers pay for the article processing charge or APC to publish their articles in an OA journal since 2013.  In the three years since, the fund has paid the APC for 39 applicants with a total expenditure of $37,576.  Most applicants were students as intended, however the fund supported a surprisingly large number of medical residents and junior faculty.  Individuals associated with the School of Medicine overwhelmingly represented the awardees compared to other units, and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals were the most common journal they published in.  While acknowledging the undeniable benefit of the fund to the awardees, the authors also pose challenging questions about the future role of libraries in subsidizing open access journals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237428951989885
Author(s):  
Kelly E. Wood ◽  
Matthew D. Krasowski

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  

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.


Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arindam Basu

Open access publications are those where following the publication itself, the publishers allow anyone to access the article or publication to read, or download without any restriction. It is believed that publishing in open access journals can increase the visibility of the publication, although uncertainties prevail. In a bid to improve the PBRF ratings, the College research committee in its monthly meeting agreed to organise an Open Access Seminar in the college. The seminar was organised on 4th of June, 2015, Thursday. Four speakers were identified. They were: Peter Lund and Anton Angelo from the University of Canterbury Central Library and Researcn Unit, Peter Binfield from PeerJ, and Viriginia Barbour from Australian Open Access Support Group. The topics of the seminar included a brief introduction to open access publishing and the state of the scenario in NZ and Australia and exploration of the issues around green and gold open access, and future directions as to what can be done to increase participation in open access. The seminar was also designed to be an open to all, and free flowing discussion. This seminar followed a format of webinar and on the spot presentations, questions and answers. A web based page was set up using the openly accessible Adobe Connect "room" where participants could connect even if they were not able to attend in person. Dr Binfield and Barbour were overseas speakers and they connected using the webinar (Adobe Connect). Mr Lund and Angelo were local speakers and they came to the meeting hall directly and spoke. A resource website was set up and the event was recorded for later viewing. The event was publicised across the university and through online channels. About 30 individuals attended the meeting in person, and ten participants joined online. Mr Lund introduced the concept of open access at the University of Canterbury, and introduced the concepts of gold and green open access; Mr Angelo introduced the concepts of creative commons, and Drs Binfield and Barbour discussed models of open access and the situation in Australia. The floor was open for questions, and clarifications and discussions from the audience participation. Key takeaway lessons from the seminar included: at the University of Canterbury, scholars are active in publishing in Open Access channels; green open access is popular in Australia and in New Zealand; newer channels and novel publishing models uitlising the Open Access formats are emerging and becoming popular; while some reservations about quality in open access exist, quality of peer review in OA journals were at par.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Cutler ◽  
Tormod Strømme ◽  
Irene Eikefjord

See video of the presentation.In 2013 The University of Bergen established a publication fund to cover the costs for publishing Open Access. The fund covers Article Processing Charges (APC) in both Open Access journals and hybrid Open Access in subscription journals. The publication fund at The University of Bergen is one of few in Norway that includes support for hybrid Open Access. The hybrid model is controversial because the publisher receives income twice for the same article, first through APC and then through subscriptions.The arguments for including hybrid were: (1) there are more journals to choose from, hence giving more researchers the opportunity and initiative to publish Open Access. (2) the quality issue of Open Access journals. The University believed that by including hybrid more articles would be published Open Access in renowned journals. This because a larger percentage of hybrid journals are registered on level 2 in the Norwegian System for defining quality of publication channels.The fund has been a success in so far that it has led to an increase in Open Access articles in high quality journals, also within research fields that traditionally do not publish Open Access. The fund has granted applications for almost 9 million NOK. Of a total of 437 granted applications, 278 (64 %) are articles in hybrid journals. 103 articles (24 %) have been published on level 2; 11 in Open Access-journals and 92 hybrid.When it comes to research field, the results show that about 90 % of granted applications come from researchers within medicine, psychology and the natural sciences, including many fields that already have a tradition for publishing their research Open Access. The fund has only led to a slight increase in Open Access publishing with APC within the humanities, social sciences and law.Researchers are happy with hybrid publishing because they are able to continue publishing in the same journals as before. It is also the case that support of hybrid publishing results in more Open Access articles in high quality journals according to the Norwegian system. Yet, support for hybrid publishing has so far not altered which research fields that publish Open Access, although there has been an increase of Open Access publications within all faculties.Our presentation will form a basis for discussing a number of questions pertaining to the hybrid model: What have the academic and economic consequences of the hybrid model been? Do all researchers at the University have the same opportunity to publish their research Open Access? Has support of hybrid lead to more Open Access in renowned publication channels?The University has appointed a group to evaluate the publication fund and recommend if and how it shall continue. Will the fund continue to support hybrid after the trial period ends in 2015?


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Da Silva Neubert ◽  
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues ◽  
Luiza Helena Goulart

Resumo Analisa os periódicos em acesso aberto da área de ciência da informação listados no DOAJ e indexados na Scopus. Os objetivos específicos são: a) descrever os periódicos científicos da área de ciência da informação em acesso aberto, b) registrar a visibilidade dos periódicos e c) verificar o uso de recursos web. Os periódicos da área de ciência da informação são publicações criadas a partir de 1990 (93,33%) sem patrocínio, publicados na América e Europa (80%), em inglês (73,33%), e mantidos por universidades, institutos de fomento a pesquisa e por associações (86,67%). Possuem Ìndice H com média 8,47, e 40% dos títulos são classificados no Qualis. Quanto aos recursos web, 33,33% possui canal de notícias, 26,66% feeds RSS, 13,33% blogs e 6,67% página no Facebook. Em relação aos recursos para compartilhamento pelo leitor, os 13,33% cuja plataforma é o Scielo disponibilizam recursos para compartilhamento por e-mail e por widget.Palavras-chave periódicos científicos; Ciência da Informação; acesso aberto; bases de dados; visibilidade dos periódicos; recursos webAbstract Analysis of open access journals in the field of library and information science listed in DOAJ and indexed in Scopus. The specific objectives are: a) to describe the scientific journals in the field of information science open access, b) recording the visibility of the journals and c) to check the usage of web resources by the journals. The information science open access publications are mostly created starting from 1990 (93.33%), unsponsored, published in North America and Europe (80%), in English (73.33% ), and maintained by universities, institutes and research funding agencies and associations (86.67%). The H index has an average of 8.47, and only 40% of the titles are classified in Qualis. The actions associated with web: 33.33% have news, RSS feeds are 26.66%, 13.33% blogs and 6.67% have a page in Facebook. Regarding resources for content sharing by the reader, 13.33% is on the Scielo platform for sharing resources available by e-mail and widget. Keywords Scientific journals; Information science; Open Access; Databases; Visibility of journals; Web resources


Author(s):  
Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia ◽  
Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias

Objetivo: A revisão por pares aberta é um dos modelos de avaliação vem sendo discutido na literatura científica, por estar em consonância com os princípios da ciência aberta. Diante disso, este estudo objetiva identificar o modelo de revisão adotado pelos periódicos científicos indexados no filtro open peer review do Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a fim de analisar se essas revistas contemplam as setes características apontadas por Ross-Hellauer (2017a). Método: Baseou-se na abordagem quanti-qualitativa, com uso do método exploratório e das técnicas de coleta de dados: pesquisa documental e entrevista não-estruturada. No DOAJ procedeu-se com o download de metadados e visitas aos websites de cada periódico a ser analisado. Já a entrevista não-estruturada foi efetivada por e-mail e mídia social dos editores. Para a análise dos dados adotou-se a análise de conteúdo, com o estabelecimento de categorias. Resultados: Apontam que a maior parte da amostra dos periódicos é oriunda do Reino Unido, está sob responsabilidade da editora BioMed Central (BMC), publicam em inglês, cobram o pagamento de taxa Article Processing Charges (APC) e cobrem a área Ciências da Saúde. As características identidades abertas e pareceres abertos são as mais adotadas pelos periódicos científicos da amostra. Além disso, de acordo com os editores, as revisões abertas são mais justas e atuam como um tutorial de ensino sobre como realizar um parecer científico. Os resultados demonstram ainda que a revisão aberta impacta na qualidade do manuscrito, resulta em avaliações melhores, mais construtivas, menos negativas e atua como uma alternativa para valorizar o trabalho voluntário dos avaliadores. Conclusões: Conclui-se que o modelo de revisão aberta mostra-se ser uma alternativa viável e que, com base nos resultados, pode-se considerá-lo como um modelo eficaz e que proporciona diversas contribuições para o processo de revisão por pares, em especial, para torná-lo mais transparente e justo.  


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Dawson

Abstract Objectives – This exploratory research seeks to broadly understand the publishing behaviours and attitudes of faculty, across all disciplines, at the University of Saskatchewan in response to the growing significance of open access publishing and archiving. The objective for seeking this understanding is to discover the current and emerging needs of researchers in order to determine if scholarly communications services are in demand here and, if so, to provide an evidence-based foundation for the potential future development of such a program of services at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan. Methods – All faculty members at the University of Saskatchewan were sent personalized email invitations to participate in a short online survey during the month of November 2012. The survey was composed of four parts: Current Research and Publishing Activities/Behaviours; Open Access Behaviours, Awareness, and Attitudes; Needs Assessment; and Demographics. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated. Results – The survey elicited 291 complete responses – a 21.9% response rate. Results suggest that faculty already have a high level of support for the open access movement, and considerable awareness of it. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding their rights as authors, a low familiarity with tools available to support them in their scholarly communications activities, and substantial resistance to paying the article processing charges of some open access journals. Survey respondents also provided a considerable number of comments – perhaps an indication of their engagement with these issues and desire for a forum in which to discuss them. It is reasonable to speculate that those who chose not to respond to this survey likely have less interest in, and support of, open access. Hence, the scholarly communications needs of this larger group of non-respondents are conceivably even greater. Conclusion – Faculty at the University of Saskatchewan are in considerable need of scholarly communications services. Areas of most need include: advice and guidance on authors’ rights issues such as retention of copyright; more education and support with resources such as subject repositories; and additional assistance with article processing charges. The University Library could play a valuable role in increasing the research productivity and impact of faculty by aiding them in these areas.


Author(s):  
Wole Michael Olatokun ◽  
Ojinga Gideon Omuinu

Putting into consideration the objective of the SDG 4, it would be important to note that the provision, access, and use of information resources such as open access (OA) journals is a sine qua non for quality education in Africa. Despite its importance to the education system, open access journals have been proliferated by predatory journals. Stakeholders in the OA movement and academia claim that predatory publishing is a big problem for scientific communication and could undermine development efforts. Hence, the increasing use of predatory open access journals could affect the attainment of SDGs in Africa; hence, there is the need to raise awareness to enhance the possibility of attaining the SDGs in Africa. This chapter will among others enumerate the possible havocs predatory open access journals can create and the setbacks on the attainment of SDGs in Africa. It will also spell out the necessary prospects of curtailing these havocs and setbacks towards providing quality-based information resources such as open access journals to the education societies in Africa.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document