Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Health Sciences Faculty Towards Scholarly Open Access and Predatory Publishing.

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically.

The gray zone between legitimate and predatory open access scientific publishing.

Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic carreers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.

Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States.

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory." Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. Conclusion: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes.

The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated. It is important, however, to resist the urge to simply join in this crusade without pausing to examine the assumptions upon which such concerns are based. It is often assumed that established journals are almost sacrosanct, and that their quality, secured by peer review, is established. It is also routinely presumed that such journals are immune to the lure of easy money in return for publication. Rather than looking at the deficits that may be apparent in the practices and products of predatory publishers, this commentary invites you to explore the weaknesses that have been exposed in traditional academic journals but are seldom discussed in the context of predatory publishing. The inherent message for health and medical services staff, researchers, academics, and students is, as always, to critically evaluate all sources of information, whatever their provenance.

A Solution to Academic Radiology's Experience With Solicitation E-mails From Predatory Journals.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to help academic researchers avoid predatory publishers by characterizing the problem with respect to radiology and medical imaging and to test an intervention to address aggressive e-mail solicitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In total, 803 faculty from 10 U.S. academic radiology departments and 193 faculty in the senior author's department were surveyed about their experiences with soliciting journals. To document the characteristics of these journals and their publishers, we retrospectively reviewed the academic institutional e-mail box of one radiologist over 51 days. Journals' bibliometric parameters were compared with those of established medical imaging journals offering open access publishing. We tested filters for selected syntax to identify spam e-mails during two time periods. RESULTS. Of 996 faculty, 206 responded (16% nationally, 42% locally). Most (98%) received e-mails from soliciting publishers. Only 7% published articles with these publishers. Submission reasons were invitations, fee waivers, and difficulty publishing elsewhere. Overall, 94 publishers sent 257 e-mails in 51 days, 50 of which offered publishing opportunities in 76 imaging journals. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, and two had verifiable impact factors. The six PubMed-indexed journals had a lower mean publication fee ($824) than top medical imaging journals ($3034) (p < 0.001) and had a shorter mean duration of existence (9.5 vs 49.0 years, respectively; p = 0.005). The e-mail filters captured 71% of soliciting e-mails during the initial 51-day period and 85% during the same period 1 year later. CONCLUSION. Soliciting publishers have little impact on scientific literature. Academicians can avoid soliciting e-mails with customized e-mail filters.

Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted. RESULTS: Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool. CONCLUSION: There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them.

Predatory journals-also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals-are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about article processing charges, misrepresenting members of the journal's editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Because of their increasing prevalence, this article aims to provide helpful information for authors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Predatory Publishing and the Academic Librarian: Developing Tools to Make Decisions.

Predatory publishing tactics are well-documented in the literature; however, the way in which academic librarians handle questions about these deceptive practices is not. A thorough review of the literature revealed a need for true decision-making tools that were easy to use and share. Based on this evidence, the authors developed Scholarly Tools Opposing Predatory Practices (STOPP) to empower librarians to make informed decisions by providing the appropriate context and tools for appraising journals, websites, conferences, and thesis converters. While geared toward academic medical librarians, these tools are built to evolve and adapt across disciplines as predatory practices evolve and adapt.

Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova.

This paper analyses the way articles are published in scientific journals in the field of law in the Republic of Moldova, including an experiment with a previously published article. Lack of compliance with journal publishing standards, including peer reviewing of articles, leads to the fact that virtually any article can be published. The examined journals do not perform their natural functions, but are rather used by researchers to report that they have scientific outcomes. The study allows us to consider that publishing in scientific journals is an indicator of the quality of scientific research, as well as an indicator of compliance with scientific research ethical principles. Scientific misconduct and lack of scientific meritocracy that are characteristic of some of the post-Soviet science, are very well reflected in the law field in the Republic of Moldova.

Predatory conferences: Addressing researchers from developing countries.

Publishing a manuscript or presenting at a conference are considered valuable accomplishments in one's professional career. However, it is necessary that the outlet be a legitimate rather than a fraudulent or predatory one. Predatory journals have been explored previously to a greater extent but the conference version of predatory entities is the newest iteration. To date, very few studies have endeavored to address the nuisance of predatory conferences and to explain the full magnitude of their significance. Our study addresses the issue of predatory conferences as an educational article for the readership of the Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, and highlights their features, available literature on predatory conferences, and puts forward several new suggestions to avoid falling prey to these illegal entities.

From Gutenberg to Open Science: An Unfulfilled Odyssey.

Preclinical Research With the almost global availability of the Internet comes the expectation of universal accessibility to knowledge, including scientific knowledge-particularly that generated by public funding. Currently this is not the case. In this Commentary we discuss access to this knowledge, the politics that govern peer review and publication, and the role of this knowledge as a public good in medicine. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1440 opened an avenue for the distribution of scholarly information to the entire world. The scientific literature first appeared in 1665 with Le Journal des Sçavans followed in the same year by Philosophical Transactions. Today there are more than 5000 scientific publishing companies, 25,000 journals and 1.5 million articles published/year generating revenue of $25 billion USD. The European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have argued for open access (OA) to scientific data for all publicly funded research by 2020 with a similar initiative in the USA via the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR). However, OA to published science is but one step in this odyssey. If the products of science are not openly available then it can be argued that the norms of science as defined by Merton including "universalism" and "communalism" have yet to be accomplished. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the delivery of medicines to the poor and for rare diseases, the attempts to privatize human genetic information and, not least, dealing with the challenges of antibiotic resistance and new disease pandemics exacerbated by climate change. Drug Dev Res 78 : 3-23, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics.

This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon 'predatory publishing', in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing.

Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research.

This article introduces predatory publishers in the context of biomedical sciences research. It describes the characteristics of predatory publishers, including spamming and using fake metrics, and it describes the problems they cause for science and universities. Predatory journals often fail to properly manage peer review, allowing pseudo-science to be published dressed up as authentic science. Academic evaluation is also affected, as some researchers take advantage of the quick, easy, and cheap publishing predatory journals provide. By understanding how predatory publishers operate, researchers can avoid becoming victimized by them.

The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities.

This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of 'prolific' scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.

To publish and perish: A Faustian bargain or a Hobson's choice.

As a matter of career choice, doctors have to choose between becoming an 'academic' or a 'practitioner.' To conduct research and publish articles in scientific journals is compulsory for the academic professional and mostly optional for the latter. The Medical Council of India has revised the eligibility qualifications for medical teachers over the past decade, and has now come out with regulations for streamlining the process of promotion by focusing on scientific papers, apart from clarifying on required experience and qualifications. 'Predatory publishers' are proliferating across the world, exploiting the reach of the Internet, and are enticing naïve professionals to publish their research work with them. The pitfalls of paid publishing in such journals may tarnish upcoming careers if doctors are not cautious. For a price, there are many publishers who will process articles without even rudimentary peer review; and for the sake of padding up of the resume, this Faustian bargain may eventually prove detrimental to authors, and thus with their professional credibility at stake, may prove to be a Hobson's choice. It is suggested for authors to make a wise choice and a correct decision when selecting a journal to submit their manuscripts.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

[Predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology]. / Revistas depredadoras en Ortopedia y Traumatología.

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.

Las revistas depredadoras se diferencian de las revistas legítimas por su falta de adecuadas revisiones y procesos editoriales, lo que compromete la calidad del contenido publicado. Estas revistas no llevan a cabo revisiones por pares ni realizan acciones que detecten y prevengan el plagio y aceptan manuscritos sin exigir modificaciones sustanciales. Su tasa de aceptación cercana al 100% se debe a su enfoque lucrativo, sin importarles el contenido que publican. Aunque presumen tener un comité editorial compuesto por investigadores destacados, en la mayoría de los casos es una simulación destinada a impresionar y atraer a los investigadores. Además, estas revistas carecen de prácticas éticas adecuadas y no son transparentes en sus procesos editoriales. Las revistas depredadoras han afectado a múltiples disciplinas, incluida la Ortopedia y Traumatología y su presencia es aún desconocida para muchos investigadores, lo que los convierte en víctimas sin saberlo. Su estrategia consiste en solicitar artículos por correo electrónico a autores que han publicado en revistas legítimas, prometiendo una publicación rápida, sencilla y económica. Las implicaciones y consecuencias negativas de las revistas depredadoras en la comunidad científica y los investigadores son numerosas. El propósito de este trabajo es proporcionar información general sobre estas revistas y específicamente en el campo de la Ortopedia y Traumatología, brindando pautas para identificarlas y evitarlas, para que los autores puedan tomar decisiones informadas al publicar sus manuscritos y evitar caer en manos de revistas o editoriales depredadoras.

Importance of considering historical contexts when selecting terminology for questionable journal list names.

Questionable journal lists are often referred to as "blacklists" and conventionally used alongside "whitelists." Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that these terms carry historical connotations that can be perceived as racist, and their use should be actively avoided. This article proposes alternative terms, such as "watchlist" and "safelist," taking into consideration their etymology. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that the quality of a journal cannot be adequately characterized in a dualistic manner, and this aspect is also of significant importance.