An Overview of Publications of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

This chapter presents an overview of the quantity and quality of clinical research in CAM and publication bias. Descriptive studies and their systematic reviews on CAM, e.g., prevalence and reasons for CAM use, have been widely conducted worldwide. The findings of the efficacy of herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture for treating various illnesses, have been highly published. Publications of CAM safety are limited. A number of clinical studies of CAM in treating kidney diseases were lower than other illnesses. Studies of Ayurveda and other CAMs are still lacking. The quality of CAM publications is described based on systematic reviews of assessing CAM publications. Publication bias is explained in terms of selective publications and location bias, language bias and conflict of interest. The mainstream journals are more likely to publish positive findings. Predatory open access and recommendations for assessing predatory journals are addressed in this chapter.

Predatory Open Access Journals and Attainment of Educational Sustainable Development Goals in Africa

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.

Predatory Journals: How Far Can They Go? An In-Depth Look at the Outliers = Grabežljivi časopisi: koliko daleko mogu ići? Temeljita analiza vrijednosti

For over a decade, predatory publishers, journals and conferences have continuously menaced the research community, preying on its resources, and diminishing the general trust in science, becoming an important research topic. Previous studies have focused on identifying their characteristics, in order to increase the academic awareness and help researchers not becoming a prey. At the same time, predatory publishers diversified their strategies; the academic community developed disparate reactions, which determined more and diverse predatory strategies, aimed at luring and deceiving the scientists. While the process is still ongoing, the present research is aimed at exposing the most extreme predation strategies, in an effort to make the line separating honest and predatory journals more traceable. The analysis of relevant samples focuses on the language issue, based on the hypothesis according to which the predatory publishers are located in countries where English is rarely spoken. The findings, including inventing English names, advertisements making no sense for the Western world, lack of quality control and a poor graphic language, confirm the hypothesis, and are also able to stand at the core of possible guidelines for exposing predatory publishers based on specific features of their calls. = Više od deset godina, grabežljivi izdavači, časopisi i konferencije kontinuirano su ugrožavali istraživačku zajednicu, loveći njene resurse i umanjujući opće povjerenje u nauku, postajući važna istraživačka tema. Prethodne studije bile su usredotočene na identificiranje njihovih karakteristika, kako bi se povećala akademska svijest i pomoglo istraživačima da ne postanu plijen. Istodobno, grabežljivi izdavači diverzificirali su svoje strategije; akademska zajednica razvila je različite reakcije, koje su odredile više i raznovrsnije predatorske strategije, usmjerene na mamljenje i obmanjivanje naučnika. Iako je postupak još uvijek u toku, ovo je istraživanje usmjereno na izlaganje najekstremnijih strategija grabežljivosti, nastojeći da linija koja razdvaja poštene i grabežljive časopise postane sljedivija. Analiza relevantnih studija slučaja usredotočena je na jezičko pitanje, zasnovano na hipotezi prema kojoj se izdavači nalaze u zemljama u kojima se engleski jezik rijetko govori. Nalazi, uključujući izmišljanje engleskih imena, reklame koje nemaju smisla za zapadni svijet, nedostatak kontrole kvaliteta i loš grafički jezik, potvrđuju hipotezu i takođe mogu stajati u srži mogućih smjernica za izlaganje predatorskih izdavača na osnovu specifičnih karakteristika njihovih poziva.

Canadian Academics’ use of predatory journals

Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian Universities. Methods Articles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles. Results All universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size. Discussion Canadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This exploratory suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements

The mainstream publishing establishment is under attack from multiple known and unknown forces. This is neither hyperbole nor fantasy. Many academics may believe that the main threat lies with “predatory” journals or publishers, but this is not necessarily the case because such entities are not always easy to distinguish clearly from veritable scholarly journals or publishers. Moreover, there is a gray zone that may involve both predatory and exploitative qualities. Current submission systems are not fail-safe because they allow unscholarly or fraudulent elements to register and abuse them, for example for submitting fake research or falsified peer reports, while author identification tools like ORCID are imperfect and provide a platform for similar-minded individuals to “validate” themselves. This toxic mix of tools aimed at fortifying integrity, while allowing fake authors to breed, currently without many, or any, ethical or legal repercussions will rapidly erode the entire publishing landscape if serious legal action is not taken. The creation of fake papers by fake authors will eventually trickle down into valid literature, by virtue of the fact that cited literature cannot be thoroughly vetted, even in peer review. The integrity of valid scholarly venues is thus at high risk unless suitable, strict and ethically and legally enforceable preventative measures are implemented.

140 Past and Future Changes in Scientific Publishing

Publication in scientific journals remains the primary method to disseminate research findings; however, the landscape of scientific publication is rapidly changing. For instance, although open access publication has led to unprecedented opportunities to share information with the global scientific community, it has also contributed to the rise of “predatory journals.” These journals accept fees to publish articles without promised quality checks (e.g. peer review). In order to better understand current publication practices and the threat predatory journals pose, this session will: 1) Briefly summarize the history of scientific publication and how the current model of peer-reviewed publication developed. 2) Define predatory journals and review components of the international consensus definition (false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, lack of transparency, aggressive/indiscriminate solicitation; Nature doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y). 3) Summarize empirical studies that have assessed the current burden of predatory journals. A broad group of stakeholders are affected by these journals, including researchers and the public. 4) Provide a practical approach for audience members to distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals. 5) Highlight some key developments that will lead to new publication models in the future.