Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).

Objective: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing. Methods: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics. Results: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores. Conclusion: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Identifying Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery: A Prospective Study.

Background: Predatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery. Methods: Unsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study. Results: In total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science. Conclusions: Of the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.

Historique: Les revues prédatrices promettent un taux d'acceptation élevé et une publication rapide en échange de frais de traitement. Puisque ces revues cherchent à optimiser leurs profits, elles omettent les mécanismes habituels garantissant la qualité d'une publication. Les courriels d'invitation non sollicités sont caractéristiques des revues prédatrices, qui inondent souvent la boîte d'accueil des chirurgiens. La présente étude visait à utiliser ces courriels pour repérer d'éventuelles revues prédatrices en chirurgie et en plasturgie. Méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont amassé les courriels non sollicités de revues liées à la chirurgie sur une période de trois mois. Ils ont évalué les revues à l'aide d'une version modifiée de la liste de Rohrich et Weinstein. Ils ont comparé le nombre moyen de critères « de prédation ¼ de ces éventuelles revues prédatrices (ÉRP) à celui de revues de plasturgie en libre accès considérées comme non prédatrices pour les besoins de la présente étude. Résultats: Au total, 437 courriels non sollicités ont été reçus. De ce nombre, 92 courriels, représentant 57 ÉRP, étaient admissibles. En moyenne, les ÉRP respectaient cinq des 12 critères « de prédation ¼, par rapport à moins de un dans le groupe comparatif. Environ 96 % de ces courriels ou des sites Web s'y rapportant contenaient des erreurs orthographiques ou grammaticales évidentes, et 98 % de ces courriels provenaient de revues ne figurant pas dans Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ou Web of Science. Conclusions: Parmi les revues qui envoyaient des courriels non sollicités, 98% respectaient au moins deux critères et étaient considérées comme prédatrices. Les auteurs devraient faire preuve de prudence lorsqu'une revue renferme des erreurs grammaticales et ne figure pas dans Scopus, DOAJ ou Web of Science.

The Upsurge of Impact Factors in Pediatric Journals Post COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Impact factor (IF) is a quantitative tool designed to evaluate scientific journals' excellence. There was an unprecedented upsurge in biomedical journals' IF in 2020, perhaps contributed by the increased number of publications since the COVID-19 outbreak. We conducted a cross-sectional study (2018-2020) to analyze recent trends in standard bibliometrics (IF, Eigenfactor, SNIP) of pediatric journals. We also estimated reference and publication counts of biomedical journals since publication volume determines the number of citations offered and IF. Methods: Various bibliometrics of pediatric journals and reference/publication volumes of biomedical journals were compared between 2020 vs. 2019 and 2019 vs. 2018. We also compared open access (OA) and subscription journals' trends. Finally, we estimated IF changes in the journals of a different specialty, pulmonology. Results: The study included 164 pediatric and 4,918 biomedical journals (OA = 1,473, subscription = 3,445). Pediatric journals' IFs had increased significantly in 2020 [median (IQR) = 2.35 (1.34)] vs. 2019 [1.82 (1.22)] (Wilcoxon: p-value < 0.001). IFs were unchanged between 2018 and 2019. Eigenfactor remained stable between 2018 and 2020, while SNIP increased progressively. Reference/publication volumes of biomedical journals escalated between 2018 and 2020, and OA journals experienced faster growth than subscription journals. IFs of pulmonary journals also increased considerably in 2020 vs. 2019. Conclusions: We report an upsurge in pediatric journals' IF, perhaps contributed by a sudden increase in publication numbers in 2020. Therefore, considering this limitation, IF should be cautiously used as the benchmark of excellence. Unlike IF, Eigenfactor remained stable between 2018 and 2020. Similar changes in IF were also observed among the journals of another specialty, pulmonology.

Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons - results from an online survey in Germany.

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.

Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this "parasitic" publishing model.

The emergence of the Internet has transformed all areas of society. This includes the universe of scientific publications, with several publishers now exclusively focusing on the electronic format and open access model while expanding to a megajournal scope. In this context, the pandemic of predatory open access journals (POAJs) and meetings are of grave concern to the academic and research community. This new shift within academia produces a variety of new victims; namely, the authors themselves. In turn, scientific knowledge is often discredited, with the public placing less trust in science. Now more than ever, performing research with integrity and selecting a journal in which to publish requires close attention and expertise. The "predatory movement" has developed increasingly sophisticated techniques for misleading people into believing what seem to be credible professional layouts and legitimate invitations. Initiatives such as the Jeffrey Beall's list, the Cabell's Scholarly Analytics and Think.Check.Submit offer some guidance to uncover the "parasitic" intervention of predatory journals and meetings, but specific education in this field is sorely needed. This work aims to review the main characteristics of predatory journals and meetings and to analyze this topic in the context of forensic and legal medicine research.

Practical Advice for South Korean Medical Researchers Regarding Open-Access and Predatory Journals.

In recent decades, the volume of scholarly literature worldwide has increased significantly, and open-access publishing has become commonplace. These changes are even more dominant in South Korea. Comparing the periods of 1981-2000 and 2001-2020, the number of medical articles produced in Korea increased by 16.8 times on the Web of Science platform (13,223 to 222,771 papers). Before 1990, almost no open-access articles were produced in South Korea, but in the last 10 years open-access publications came to account for almost 40% of all South Korean publications on Web of Science. Along with the expansion of literature and the development of open-access publishing, predatory journals that seek profit without conducting quality assurance have appeared and undermined the academic corpus. In this rapidly changing environment, medical researchers have begun contemplating publication standards. In this article, recent trends in academic publishing are examined from international and South Korean perspectives, and the significance of open-access publishing and recent changes are discussed. Practical methods that can be used to select legitimate publishers, including open-access journals, and identify predatory journals are also discussed.

Tear down the walls: Disseminating open access research for a global impact.

OBJECTIVE: Publications are the cornerstone of the dissemination of scientific innovation and scholarly work, but published works are mostly behind paywalls. Therefore, many researchers and institutions are searching for alternative models for disseminating scholarly work that bypasses the current structure of paywalls. This study aimed to determine whether a self-published open access (OA) journal, the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS), has been able to reach a global audience in terms of authorship, readership, and impact using the OA model. METHODS: All IJHS articles were retrieved and analyzed using scientometric methods. Using the keywords from abstracts and titles, unsupervised clustering was performed to map research trends. Network analysis was used to chart the network of collaboration. The analysis of articles' metadata and the visualizations was performed using R programming language. RESULTS: Using Google Scholar as a source, the general statistics of IJHS from inception to 2019 showed that the average citation per article was 11.29, and the impact factor of the journal was 2.28. The results demonstrate the obvious local and global impact of a locally published journal that allows unrestricted OA and uses an open source publishing platform. The journal's success at attracting diverse topics, authors, and readers is a testament to the power of the OA model. CONCLUSIONS: Open source is feasible and rewarding and enables a global reach for research from under-represented regions. Local journals can help the Global South disseminate their scholarly work, which is frequently ignored by commercial and established publications.

Two Decades of Research Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Data: Bibliometric and Text Mining Analysis on PubMed.

BACKGROUND: Studies using Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data have expanded rapidly both in quantity and quality during the first decade following the first study published in 2000. However, some of these studies were criticized for being merely data-dredging studies rather than hypothesis-driven. In addition, the use of claims data without the explicit authorization from individual patients has incurred litigation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the research output during the second decade after the release of the NHI claims database continues growing, to explore how the emergence of open access mega journals (OAMJs) and lawsuit against the use of this database affect the research topics and publication volume and to discuss the underlying reasons. METHODS: PubMed was used to locate publications based on NHI claims data between 1996 and 2017. Concept extraction using MetaMap was employed to mine research topics from article titles. Research trends were analyzed from various aspects, including publication amount, journals, research topics and types, and cooperation between authors. RESULTS: A total of 4473 articles were identified. A rapid growth in publications was witnessed from 2000 to 2015, followed by a plateau. Diabetes, stroke, and dementia were the top 3 most popular research topics whereas statin therapy, metformin, and Chinese herbal medicine were the most investigated interventions. Approximately one-third of the articles were published in open access journals. Studies with two or more medical conditions, but without any intervention, were the most common study type. Studies of this type tended to be contributed by prolific authors and published in OAMJs. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in publication volume during the second decade after the release of the NHI claims database was different from that during the first decade. OAMJs appeared to provide fertile soil for the rapid growth of research based on NHI claims data, in particular for those studies with two or medical conditions in the article title. A halt in the growth of publication volume was observed after the use of NHI claims data for research purposes had been restricted in response to legal controversy. More efforts are needed to improve the impact of knowledge gained from NHI claims data on medical decisions and policy making.

An insight into predatory journals.

The impact of scholarly journals has increased with invent of Internet due to improved access, faster dissemination, and ease of searching a variety of publications. With the increasing trend of research, open access (OA) publishing has increased intensely over the last few years. The core intent of OA is faster dissemination of research by making it available to readers free of cost. However, some publishers exploited this novel idea for their own benefit. Beall termed them as predatory publishers/journals. In this article, authors have made efforts to understand the predatory publishers/journal, reasons behind their upsurge, their modus operandi, their common targets, and the points which will help readers to identify them. The aim of this article is to expose facts behind the predatory journal and to create awareness among not only budding researchers but also faculty members, authors, and editors about the threat predatory journals carry toward scientific world and to their own curricula.

Research Integrity at Risk: Predatory Journals Are a Growing Threat.

The desperation to publish among the scientific and academic community has reached new pinnacles and a new threat to academic integrity has surfaced in the form of predatory journals. These journals try to attract the young researchers with aggressive advertisements promising an early turnaround time for publication which is through absence of peer review and comes at a cost in the form of article processing fees. Predatory journals are an increasing menace affecting research integrity since they assist in author misconduct. They exploit its very foundation which aims at conducting and reporting the research in a truthful way that in turn builds trust and confidence for science in the society. This review gives an overview of predatory journals, their modus operandi, the ethical concerns associated with them and means to curb this menace.

Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives.

Open access (OA) publishing is a recent phenomenon in scientific publishing, enabling free access to knowledge worldwide. In the Indian context, OA to science has been facilitated by government-funded repositories of student and doctoral theses, and many Indian society journals are published with platinum OA. The proportion of OA publications from India is significant in a global context, and Indian journals are increasingly available on OA repositories such as Pubmed Central, and Directory of Open Access Journals. However, OA in India faces numerous challenges, including low-quality or predatory OA journals, and the paucity of funds to afford gold OA publication charges. There is a need to increase awareness amongst Indian academics regarding publication practices, including OA, and its potential benefits, and utilize this modality of publication whenever feasible, as in publicly-funded research, or when platinum OA is available, while avoiding falling prey to poor quality OA journals.

Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives

Open access (OA) publishing is a recent phenomenon in scientific publishing, enabling free access to knowledge worldwide. In the Indian context, OA to science has been facilitated by government-funded repositories of student and doctoral theses, and many Indian society journals are published with platinum OA. The proportion of OA publications from India is significant in a global context, and Indian journals are increasingly available on OA repositories such as Pubmed Central, and Directory of Open Access Journals. However, OA in India faces numerous challenges, including low-quality or predatory OA journals, and the paucity of funds to afford gold OA publication charges. There is a need to increase awareness amongst Indian academics regarding publication practices, including OA, and its potential benefits, and utilize this modality of publication whenever feasible, as in publicly-funded research, or when platinum OA is available, while avoiding falling prey to poor quality OA journals.

Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing.

Academic researchers who seek to publish their work are confronted daily with a barrage of e-mails from aggressive marketing campaigns that solicit them to publish their research with a specialized, often newly launched, journal. Known as predatory journals, they often promise high editorial and publishing standards, yet their exploitive business models, poor quality control, and minimal overall transparency victimize those researchers with limited academic experience and pave the way for low-quality articles that threaten the foundation of evidence-based research. Understanding how to identify these predatory journals requires thorough due diligence on the part of the submitting authors, and a commitment by reputable publishers, institutions, and researchers to publicly identify these predators and eliminate them as a threat to the careers of young scientists seeking to disseminate their work in scholarly journals. Anat Sci Educ 10: 392-394. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Bias and other limitations affect measures of journals in integrative and complementary medicineKa-wai Fan, PhD.

Publishing articles in a prestigious journal is a golden rule for university professors and researchers nowadays. Impact factor, journal rank, and citation count, included in Science Citation Index managed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science, are the most important indicators for evaluating the quality of academic journals. By listing the journals encompassed in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category of Science Citation Index from 2003 to 2013, this paper examines the publication trends of journals in the category. The examination includes number, country of origin, ranking, and languages of journals. Moreover, newly listed or removed journals in the category, journal publishers, and open access strategies are examined. It is concluded that the role of journal publisher should not be undermined in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category.

For 481 biomedical open access journals, articles are not searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals nor in conventional biomedical databases.

Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases' criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ's coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, one journal had received an impact factor for 2012, and 59.6% of the journals had no content from 2013 indexed in DOAJ. Conclusions. DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.