scholarly journals Essential Information about Predatory Publishers and Journals

2016 ◽  
pp. 2-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

This article introduces, defines, and describes predatory publishers and journals and shows how they hurt science and victimize individual researchers. Academic evaluation that only counts the number of publications may not provide an accurate measure of scholarly achievement, as journals routinely accept papers with little or no peer review.

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genae Strong

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.


ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. e000580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Richtig ◽  
Erika Richtig ◽  
Alexandra Böhm ◽  
Christoph Oing ◽  
Farastuk Bozorgmehr ◽  
...  

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 705-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
MB Forrester

Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995–2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995–1999, 536 in 2000–2004, 999 in 2005–2009, and 1349 in 2010–2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
Devlin V Smith ◽  
Laura B Stokes ◽  
Kayleigh Marx ◽  
Samuel L Aitken

For pharmacists, the first years after graduation are spent developing their knowledge base, advancing as a practitioner, and honing their abilities as healthcare providers and drug information experts. New practitioners encounter many challenges during this time, which for many include publishing original research or reviewing manuscripts for colleagues and medical journals. Inexperience navigating the publication process, from submission to receipt of (and response to) peer review commentary, is often cited as a major barrier to timely publication of resident and new practitioner research. Serving as a peer reviewer in turn provides the new practitioner with insight on this process and can be an enlightening experience used to garner confidence in subsequently submitting their own formal manuscripts. A number of publications describing steps for peer review are available, however, many of these articles address more experienced reviewers or critique the peer review process itself. No definitive resource exists for new pharmacy practitioners interested in developing their peer review skills. The information presented in this summative guide should be used in conjunction with practice opportunities to help new practitioners develop proficiency at peer review.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suresh K. Rana ◽  
Ranbeer S. Rawal ◽  
Bhawana Dangwal ◽  
Indra D. Bhatt ◽  
Trevor D. Price

Global mountains, including the Himalaya, are highly vulnerable ecosystems, especially given climate and land-use changes. Here, we compile the literature on Himalayan biodiversity in order to assess spatial and taxonomic trends in research during the past 200 years. We identified 35,316 research outputs, including 28,120 journal articles, 3,725 doctoral theses, and 3,471 books. Nepal contributes the largest volume of published literature, followed by west Himalayan Indian states, with relatively few studies on the most biodiverse region lying to the east of Nepal. Publications on Himalayan biodiversity research have increased annually, especially after 1970, with an acceleration since 2000. Among the major taxonomic groups, the largest number of publications is on seed plants (angiosperms), followed by invertebrates (especially arthropods) and vertebrates. Some groups of organisms, notably fungi, bacteria, algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, etc., are clearly understudied. Among various research disciplines, ecology is the most dominant field followed by agriculture, ethnobiology, and paleontology. Some newer disciplines, including molecular biology and climate change, have contributed to the growth in the number of papers appearing during the last two decades. Despite an encouraging and rapid increase in research papers during this century, they are largely in low-impact-factor journals, likely to be subject to poor peer review, and many doctoral theses remain unpublished. The Government of India's development initiative emphasizes the importance of research in the Himalaya, which can be enhanced by improved quality of peer review and local journals registering in global indexing services.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-438
Author(s):  
Isabel Cristina Scafuto ◽  
Priscila Rezende da Costa ◽  
Marcos Rogerio Mazieri

The International Journal of Innovation: IJI has been making some changes in recent years and, therefore, increasingly improving its content. These are transformations that would not be possible without the incessant collaboration of the entire IJI team. Ther are always tireless and impeccable. It would not be possible without all the articles submitted by the authors who believe and choose the IJI for their publications. It would not be possible either, without the reviewers who contribute with a lot of dedication, spending their time and knowledge on improving the articles to publish the IJI. We are immensely grateful to everyone! Special thanks to UNINOVE, who have always supported and continue to support IJI.At the end of 2021, we would like to present some data and information that enable readers, authors, and reviewers to follow the evolution of the IJI. We remain dedicated to raising the bar for the IJI. IJI is in the main databases: Dialnet, EBSCO, ERIHPLUS, Latindex, ProQuest, Redalyc, Redib, Spell, Web of Science and Zeitschriften Datenbank. It is classified in stratum B1 of the new QUALIS/CAPES proposal. It is published every four months (January-April; May-August; September-December) and accepts submissions in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, and published in English only.The International Journal of Innovation: IJI's mission is to serve as a vehicle for the periodic publication of scientific and technological works in innovation with a focus on emerging markets, which study individuals, organizations, ecosystems, and policies. The journal's topics of interest focusing on emerging markets are Innovative Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Learning, Innovation and Sustainability, Internationalization of Innovation, Innovation Systems, Emerging Themes of Innovation, and Digital Transformation. As we have already mentioned in another editorial comment, the IJI accepts scientific articles, technology articles, perspectives, and reviews, in addition to the editorial comment.We now present some data from IJI submissions for this year, 2021 (Table 1). Table 1Submissions to the IJIWorks submitted87Rejections65%Acceptance35% Eighty-seven works were submitted to the IJI, of which 65% were rejected and 35% were approved. With these numbers, we observe that rejection is still high. The rejection happens; most of the time, in the desk-reject the editors perform that. The reasons are: a) the submitted works are not following the scope of the IJI; b) the submitted works do not meet the minimum requirements for a publication and are not considered to proceed to a peer review and blind.When articles move to the stage of blind and peer review, the number of rejections gets smaller. Generally, works are rejected at this stage when the authors do not comply with the evaluators' recommendations. Our intention is, with the help of reviewers and authors, to increasingly improve the quality of submitted articles and increase the number of publications in the IJI.Submissions are from different countries. In this year of 2021, we had the following scenario (Table 2). Table 2Submissions to the IJI - by countryCountrySubmissionsBrazil59Argentina1Colombia1Cuba1Algeria2Indonesia2India3Jordan1Sri Lanka1Mexico1Malasia1Nigeria3Portugal2Saudi Arabia3Tunisia1Turkey1Ukraine1Vietnam2South Africa1TOTAL87 The most significant works submitted are from Brazilian authors, but with a balanced distribution among other countries. We are happy that the IJI is considered a possibility for authors from different countries on our continent and other continents. We want to increase the number of foreign submissions and their publications. We believe that this action is important for the academic community due to the diversity of contexts.The IJI counts on the valuable availability of the evaluators, who we know have to dedicate their precious time to help us improve our work. Our evaluation time is still high, up to 98 days. Some reasons impact this deadline: a) the reviewers are very demanding with researchers with little experience, causing back and forth in the assessments until they reach the expected quality for the article; b) holidays in the middle of the year and at the end of the year delay the evaluations a little; c) evaluators also divide their time with evaluations of academic events throughout the year. Due to these reasons, the publication of the works is also compromised. We took up to 122 days to publish the articles.Another interesting piece of information that we would like to share with our readers is the number of registered users of IJI. IJI has 1270 registered users, including authors, reviewers, and readers. In the last year of 2021, there were 534 new users. It makes us very happy, as the number of users has almost doubled. This action makes us hope to have more works submitted and, consequently, more quality works published.We aim to improve and make the IJI a journal with more impact in the academic and practical environment. With the help of everyone involved, we will improve the level of evaluations and significantly improve the published works. We want to bring relevant content that contributes to science in Brazil and other countries around the world.We thank you all for your help and support in this growing IJI journey!


2021 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

Abstract All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series (CLABIO 2021) have been peer reviewed through a processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were developed in a single-blind form, and conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Acceptance criteria related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers were: Technical Criteria.- Scientific merit, clarity of expression, sufficient discussion and suitable referencing. Quality Criteria.- Originality, motivation, repetition and suitable length. Presentation Criteria.- Title adequate and appropriate, abstract with essential information, clear diagrams, figures, tables, captions, text and mathematics. Conclusion carefully written summarizing novelty. • Conference submission management system: The conference submission management system used was EasyChair Ltd (Manchester, UK). Number of submissions received: The number of paper received was 22 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: • Number of submissions accepted: Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): All were send for review, one paper was rejected, thus the acceptance rate was 95% Average number of reviews per paper: The average number of reviewer per paper was 2, and a total number of 16 reviewers were involved. • Total number of reviewers involved: 16 • Any additional info on review process: Every paper submission was analyzed by a plagiarism check system and a similitude report was obtained, acceptance similitude rate was < 5%. In addition; an English review evidence was mandatory, review of language in grammar and style by a professional proof-reading service or native speaker English colleague (i.e. Invoice, receipt, professional letter, e-mail, etc). Final submission was updated with a “cover letter” for reviewer with explanation point by point how authors answered, corrected or modified every reviewer´s comments, as well as an “authors check list” format where authors check each point with assuring that their final version fulfils the format template requirements accordingly JPCS author guidelines for conference proceedings, in such format corresponding author was aware and signed the IOP proceedings license notice. Contact person for queries: César Antonio González Díaz Chair Program CLABIO 2021 Proceedings Editor Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México. [email protected]


Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

Predatory publishers and journals aim to make as much money as possible from researchers using the author-pays publishing model. Though most claim to manage a proper peer review, the practice of rejecting papers for publication is contrary to their business model of maximizing revenue through author fees. Accordingly, predatory publishers frequently accept and publish articles presenting pseudo-science dressed up as legitimate research. This chapter analyzes the increasing occurrence of pseudo-science being published in predatory open-access journals.


Author(s):  
Bernard Montoneri

This chapter discusses the literature on plagiarism and aims at helping readers better understand what plagiarism is, what is at stake, and how to fight intellectual dishonesty. First, it is essential to define plagiarism and to present the historical background related to academic malpractice. Since the advent of the internet, the number of cases of plagiarism has increased exponentially. Many websites overtly encourage acts of cheating and plagiarism, offer or sell programs designed to copy, generate, and even buy assignments and academic papers. The growing number of retracted documents, not only in open access journals but also in journals owned by major publishers, is disturbing. This chapter will notably discuss the rise and thrive of “predatory” publishers, the growth of fake papers, the abuse of fake positive peer review, and the disturbing success of contract cheating. Finally, it should be noted that even though academic malpractice is damaging the reputation of the scientific community, many solutions have been proposed and implemented.


2021 ◽  
Vol 873 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

The 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Geophysics (SEACG) 2020 All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single blind • Conference submission management system: Conference web submission system • Number of submission Received: 151 manuscripts received • Number of submission sent for review: 110 manuscripts sent for review • Number of submission accepted: 102 manuscript accepted by editor • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): (102/151) x 100 = 67.5 % • Average number of reviews per paper: Average 2 reviewers of each paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 45 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: – We did plagiarism check for each paper using licenced Turnitin online software. And we accepted the level of plagiarism each manuscript below 20 %. – The review process was conducted using google form that integrated with conference secretariat email. We sent a review invitation to reviewer by official email of SEACG 2020 and the reviewers conducted review process based on 4 sections: • Technical Criteria • Scientific merit of the manuscript: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness. • Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts. • Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. • Quality Criteria • Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? • Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. • Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? • Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length? • Presentation Criteria • Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article? • Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service? • Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear? • Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted. • Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? • Decision • Reviewer comment • Suggestion ∘ Ready to publish ∘ Minor correction ∘ Major correction ∘ Reject – All the comments by reviewers were sent to the author to make the correction and revision within 20 days. The editor will check each revised manuscript carefully and make sure the authors have addressed the questions and comments from reviewer. If the manuscript need to do revision for 2nd circle, the editor would send it back to the authors. • Contact person for queries: Dr. Zulfakriza Geophysical Engineering Dept. Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia [email protected]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document