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.

[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.

The Gray Zone Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Scientific Publishing

ABSTRACT 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.

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.

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.

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.

Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university.

The publish or perish concept requires academics to ensure that they take part in research and publish the research results in academic journals. The emergency of predatory publishers has led to negativity in the scholarly publishing process. Some researchers are unaware that some publishers are unethical. A study was conducted to determine the extent of predatory publishing in Zimbabwe among academics. A survey was carried out using a multi-method approach at a public university in Zimbabwe. Articles published between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved using the Harzing publish or perish software. In total, 977 articles were retrieved, and after data cleaning using Open Refine, 357 records were analyzed using the journal evaluation rubric and scoring sheet to note the extent of predatory publishing among the various schools. The articles were then classified into 3 sections i.e., predatory, not predatory, and borderline. The findings revealed that predatory publishing is prevalent in the social sciences. The authors recommend the importance of training to create awareness about the dangers of predatory publishing and how to avoid them to improve the scholarly output of the institution, which is key to university ranking.

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts.

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.

Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders' dishonest behavior?

With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010-2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct.

"Researchers' perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey".

The term "Predatory" alludes to the assumption that these organizations prey on academics for financial gain by charging article processing charges (APC) while failing to meet scholarly publishing standards.Predatory publishing is a growing threat to the academic society. Considering this,the University Grants Commission (UGC),India's statutory body for higher education,has responded by launching the University Grants Commission-Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (UGC-CARE) list,which attempts to promote research quality,integration,and publication ethics.An online survey was undertaken to determine the perception and awareness of North Eastern Hill University's researchers concerning predatory journals.A total of 160 respondents were recorded.The survey reveals that while the majority of participants (58.75%) were aware of predatory publications, a significant portion (41.25%) were not.It was found that a journal's listing in UGC-CARE list is the most crucial factor in submitting an original manuscript for publication.Researchers,aware of the negative consequences of publishing in piracy-related publications,prefer not to submit their scientific work to such publishers as it risk tarnishing their reputation.As a result,research findings emphasize the necessity for awareness initiatives to educate researchers about predatory publications early in their academic careers.Research initiatives like the UGC-CARE list should be encouraged to minimize predatory publishing; promote quality and transparency in research.Abbreviation: NEHU- North Eastern Hill University, UGC- University Grants Commission, APC- Article Processing Charge, UGC-CARE- University Grants Commission - Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics, DOAJ- Directory of Open Access Journals, DOI - Digital Object Identifiers, API- Academic Performance Indicator.

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing.

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality - focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality - one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System.

INTRODUCTION: Learning research methodology is increasingly becoming an essential part of graduate medical education worldwide, with many regulatory and accreditation bodies requiring residents to participate in scholarship. Research methodology workshops have become a standard part of medical curricula; however, there is limited data on how much training on journal selection and the publication process trainees receive. The alarming growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for researchers, especially trainees and early career physicians, to distinguish these publications from reputable journals. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge of reputable and predatory publishing practices amongst medical trainees in an international medical education setting in the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: A survey on credible journal practices based on the 'Think. Check. Submit' initiative was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies. RESULTS: Over half of the 160 respondents reported receiving prior research methodology training and 42.5% had at least one publication. The majority of the trainees selected impact factor and the quality of the peer-review process as characteristics of reputable journals. Ambiguous editorial board and rapid publication process were recognized as characteristics of predatory journals by >65% of trainees, however, 95% of all trainees were unaware of Beall's list or other resources to help select a journal for publication. 15.2% of trainees who received unsolicited emails from publishers submitted their manuscripts to the unfamiliar journals, citing peer recommendation and pressure to publish from their training programs as reasons. CONCLUSION: Trainees in the United Arab Emirates were mostly unaware of reputable publication practices and are vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. Policy and educational reform are necessary to maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process.

De-naturalizing the "predatory": A study of "bogus" publications at public sector universities in Pakistan.

Predatory publishing has recently emerged as a menace in academia. University professors and researchers often exploit this practice for their economic gains and institutional prestige. The present study investigates such existing predatory publishing practices in Pakistani public sector universities drawing on the notion of symbolic violence. For this purpose, we analyzed 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities over the period 2017-2021. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 postgraduate students to gather their perspectives on publishing practices. The study shows that 69% of the sample papers were published in predatory journals, as identified in Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's (HEC) online journal recognition system (HJRS). Postgraduate students' insights inform the study that the students misrecognize these malpractices in academia as a problem what is referred to as "symbolic violence." Consequently, they engage in the process to increase their publications. Such publications enable both the university professors and the students to achieve the desired benefit, such as promotions, tenure, and academic degrees. We recommend that this practice must be altered at the policy level since it not only violates the HEC's standards for quality research but also damages the researchers' credibility and country's scientific reputation.

Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature.

This paper explores that the topic of ethics dumping (ED), its causes and potential remedies. In ED, the weaknesses or gaps in ethics policies and systems of lower income countries are intentionally exploited for intellectual or financial gains through research and publishing by higher income countries with a more stringent or complex ethical infrastructure in which such research and publishing practices would not be permitted. Several examples are provided. Possible ED needs to be evaluated before research takes place, and detected prior to publication as an academic paper, because it might lead to a collaborative effort between a wealthier country with restrictive ethical policies and a less wealthy country with more permissive policies. Consequently, if that collaboration ultimately results in an academic paper, there are ethical ramifications of ED to scholarly communication. Institutional review board approval is central to avoid ED-based collaborations. Blind trust and goodwill alone cannot eliminate the exploitation of indigenous or "vulnerable" populations' intellect and resources. Combining community-based participatory research using clear codes of research conduct and a simple but robust verification system in academic publishing may reduce the risks of ED-based research from being published.

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.

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.

Should anonymous and pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged?

Post-publication peer review (PPPR) relies on signed or anonymous/pseudonymous comments, and is a fundamental process that complements the weakness of traditional peer review that were not discussed by Trotter (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.10.009). Yet, should anonymous or pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged if their identities cannot be confirmed? This discussion abridges some of the issues underlining the fundamentals of PPPR, supplementing the gaps not covered by Trotter, and why there are ethical complexities involved with citing anonymous or pseudonymous entities. Based on COPE and ICMJE ethical guidelines, the argument against citing or acknowledging anonymous or pseudonymous entities is strong, because doing so would likely infringe upon one or more of their stated ethical regulations. Currently, no clearly stated regulations exist pertaining to this issue, so this discussion provides a spring-board for policy makers and academics to initiate a debate, and ultimately establish a clear set of publishing ethics guidelines pertaining to the acknowledgement of anonymous or pseudonymous entities.

Avoiding predatory publishing for early-career ophthalmologists.

This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall's, Cabell's, Manca's, and Strinzel's list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50-500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50-3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.