Enhancing Research Integrity and Publication Ethics: An Analysis of the Latest International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations.

In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study.

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

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.

An artificial intelligence tool misclassifies sport science journals as predatory.

OBJECTIVES: The choice of a scholarly journal, as opposed to a predatory journal, might impact a sport scientist's career negatively if the wrong choice is made, especially at an early stage of their research and publishing careers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly impacting sport science and academia. In this study, we tested the accuracy and sensitivity of an AI-driven tool, applied specifically to sport science. DESIGN: Our research relies on the use of a new and free online AI-driven tool, the AJPC System, which claims the ability to distinguish "normal" (scholarly) from "suspected predatory" (unscholarly) journals. METHODS: The AJPC System was used to assess (1 December 2023) the classification of all ranked sport journals (n = 124), namely those in all four quartiles (Q1-Q4) of SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), in the "Sports Science" category. RESULTS: The AJPC System considered 47/124 journals to be "suspected predatory", mostly in Q4 journals (54.8 % of total), casting a negative image on their academic standing. CONCLUSIONS: Sport scientists are likely to consider SJR Q1-Q4 journals to be relatively safe to publish in, reliable and reputable, and might be confused with the "suspected predatory" label assigned to 37.9 % of those journals. The AJPC System is thus misleading sport scientists.

A Toolkit for Detecting Fallacious Calls for Papers from Potential Predatory Journals.

Purpose: Flattering emails are crucial in tempting authors to submit papers to predatory journals. Although there is ample literature regarding the questionable practices of predatory journals, the nature and detection of spam emails need more attention. Current research provides insight into fallacious calls for papers from potential predatory journals and develops a toolkit in this regard. Methods: In this study, we analyzed three datasets of calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals using a text mining approach and R programming language. Results: Overall, most potential predatory journals use similar language and templates in their calls for papers. Importantly, these journals praise themselves in glorious terms involving positive words that may be rarely seen in emails from legitimate journals. Based on these findings, we developed a lexicon for detecting unsolicited calls for papers from potential predatory journals. Conclusion: We conclude that calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals are different, and it can help to distinguish them. By providing an educational plan and easily usable tools, we can deal with predatory journals better than previously.

The ASGLOS Study: A global survey on how predatory journals affect scientific practice.

Predatory journals and conferences are an emerging problem in scientific literature as they have financial motives, without guaranteeing scientific quality and exposure. The main objective of the ASGLOS project is to investigate the predatory e-email characteristics, management, and possible consequences and to analyse the extent of the current problem at each academic level. To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. A total of 978 responses were analysed from 58 countries around the world. A total of 64.8% of participants indicated the need for 3 or fewer emails to acquire a criticality view in distinguishing a real invitation from a spam, while 11.5% still have doubt regardless of how many emails they get. The AGLOS Study clearly highlights the problem of academic e-mail spam by predatory journals and conferences. Our findings signify the importance of providing academic career-oriented advice and organising training sessions to increase awareness of predatory publishing for those conducting scientific research.

Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them.

Predatory publishers, also known as counterfeit, deceptive, or fraudulent, are organisations that exploit the open-access scholarly model by charging hefty article processing charges (APCs), often without the scientific rigour and ethical processes offered by legitimate journals. Their rising prevalence is of concern to the scientific community, as the consequences of falling victim to them can negatively impact academic integrity and reputation, and render an author's work worthless and untrustworthy. Common characteristics include inappropriate marketing and misrepresentation of services by targeting individuals with solicitation emails, inadequate peer-review processes, lack of editorial services and transparency about APCs, and false claims about citation metrics and indexing that cannot be verified. Given the infiltration of predatory publishers, authors are advised to proceed with caution when receiving solicitation emails and if in doubt, to follow the Think, Check, Submit checklist.

Journal Selection Primer for Neuroradiology Researchers.

Junior Neuroradiology investigators face a rapidly expanding universe of potential journals for manuscript submission. Each journal possesses many unique features, including scope/breadth of research focus, willingness to accept specific types of articles (for example, Review Articles, or Case Reports), status of indexing on major academic indices, scholarly relevance (usually defined as Impact Factor) and access type (Open Access, subscription, or Hybrid Access). An uninformed choice of target journal can burden not only Editors and Reviewers but also increase the effort and frustration level of relatively inexperienced investigators and ultimately result in a worthy manuscript not getting published. In order to assist Junior Neuroradiology investigators in optimizing journal selection for manuscript submission, we provide a Primer that includes background information on all the journal features listed previously. We also provide detailed tabular data for all Radiology, Neuroradiology, and associated Neuroscience Clinical Journals that follow proper academic standards as a quick and useful reference guide for optimal journal selection.

[Médecine Tropicale et Santé Internationale takes a stand against editorial predation]. / Médecine Tropicale et Santé Internationale s'engage contre la prédation éditoriale.

Warnings against predatory journals get stronger. Designed to capture manuscripts with the promise of rapid publication, the main aim of these journals is to charge abusive publication fees. Sometimes boasting imaginary impact factors, they are not indexed and offer no guarantee of visibility, accessibility or durability of the published article. Above all, they have no concern for the rigor and scientific integrity of the work they publish.

"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.

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences.

Predatory publishing represents a major challenge to scholarly communication. This paper maps the infiltration of journals suspected of predatory practices into the citation database Scopus and examines cross-country differences in the propensity of scholars to publish in such journals. Using the names of "potential, possible, or probable" predatory journals and publishers on Beall's lists, we derived the ISSNs of 3,293 journals from Ulrichsweb and searched Scopus with them. 324 of journals that appear both in Beall's lists and Scopus with 164 thousand articles published over 2015-2017 were identified. Analysis of data for 172 countries in 4 fields of research indicates that there is a remarkable heterogeneity. In the most affected countries, including Kazakhstan and Indonesia, around 17% of articles fall into the predatory category, while some other countries have no predatory articles whatsoever. Countries with large research sectors at the medium level of economic development, especially in Asia and North Africa, tend to be most susceptible to predatory publishing. Arab, oil-rich and/or eastern countries also appear to be particularly vulnerable. Policymakers and stakeholders in these and other developing countries need to pay more attention to the quality of research evaluation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4).

Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note.

BACKGROUND: France ranks 9th worldwide for scientific publication in orthopedics and the increase in both the quantity and the quality of its scientific production has been described in detail. On the other hand, publishing by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals is more obscure. The journals in question are difficult to identify but are based on an open-access model with article processing charges (APC), except in rare cases that are difficult to specify, as they are not stated at the time of submission. The increase in the number of predatory journals over the last 10 years led us to attempt to assess the rate at which French orthopedic surgeons publish in them, as revealed by investigation of the SIGAPS bibliometric database. HYPOTHESIS: Over the period 2008-2017, the rate of publications by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals was less than 5%. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The SIGAPS database contains the detail of publications by French orthopedic surgeons members of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and was used to analyse all such articles (journal article, review or editorial) so as to isolate articles with PubMed-Not-MEDLINE status falling in the SIGAPS non-classified (NC) category and to determine the predatory status of the journal using established lists, such as Beall's list or that drawn up by StopPredatoryJournals. In case of difficulty in determining predatory status, we applied the criteria defined by Beall and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). RESULTS: Out of 6056 articles in the SIGAPS database published by French orthopedic surgeons between 2008 and 2017, 323 could be suspected of being published in a predatory journal, but only 33 were so confirmed: i.e., 0.55% of French orthopedic scientific output over the study period. Eleven appeared in journals whose publishers were listed as predatory by Beall, 21 appeared in journals whose publishers had been listed as predatory on Beall's list in 2012 with the dubious editorial practices defined by Beall, and one article appeared in a journal found to be predatory on analysis of its editorial board. More than half of these articles (58%) were subject to APCs averaging $400. DISCUSSION: Despite a strong increase in the number of predatory journals over the last decade, very few French orthopedic surgeons resort to them to publish their work. Difficulty of identification and authors' lack of knowledge about this type of journals may account for some of these submissions. Scientific teams need to check certain criteria before submitting to a journal: short time to publication and low APC should be taken as warning signs, and any demand for payment after acceptance certainly raises the question of the journal's predatory nature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study without control group.

Problems With Open Access Publishing in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE. Open access publishing has grown exponentially and can be a means of increasing availability of scientific knowledge to readers who cannot afford to pay for access. This article discusses problems that can occur with open access and offers suggestions for ameliorating the problems facing radiology research because of poor-quality journals. CONCLUSION. Open access literature has loosed an avalanche of information into the radiology world, much of which has not been validated by careful peer review. To maintain academic integrity and serve our colleagues and patients, radiologists need to guard against shoddy science published in deceptive journals.

Copyright violation of predators in scientific publishing - Biochemia Medica's harmful experience and proposed solution.

Biochemia Medica is an open access journal that does not charge manuscript processing or publishing. All editorial staff are continuously educated and directed to follow the highest ethical and scholarly publishing standards in all steps of the manuscript processing. They are all laboratory medicine professionals, who apart from their regular jobs, are in charge of different phases in Journal processing as volunteers. The publisher of the Journal is scientific and professional association of laboratory medicine professionals, Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory medicine (CSMBLM). During November and December 2018, without knowledge of the editorial staff, unknown perpetrator(s) downloaded a respectable number of articles published in Biochemia Medica as PDF and launched an illegal web page under the same journal name with downloaded articles. Although this was a very harmful experience, we have learned a lot from it and we would like to share this with scientific journals' community. Therefore, we would like to share this harmful experience, and to present a short workflow on how to manage situations like this if it will be necessary for any scientific journal in the future.

Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".

This article presents an editorial perspective on the challenges associated with e-mail management for academic physicians. We include 2-week analysis of our own e-mails as illustrations of the e-mail volume and content. We discuss the contributors to high e-mail volumes, focusing especially on unsolicited e-mails from medical/scientific conferences and open-access journals (sometimes termed "academic spam emails"), as these e-mails comprise a significant volume and are targeted to physicians and scientists. Our 2-person sample is consistent with studies showing that journals that use mass e-mail advertising have low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one's inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette. Academic institutions should focus on decreasing the volume of unsolicited e-mails, fostering tools to manage e-mail overload, and educating physicians including trainees about e-mail practices, predatory journals, and scholarly database/resources.

A holistic approach to remove the bottlenecks and to improve the quality of medical research in India.

The current trend of conducting research and publishing the same to fulfill the academic or professional requirements can jeopardise what research actually means in health sciences. Rather than highlighting how many publications one can have, or showcase the expertise as a researcher, research can inform knowledge gaps and address the same in a replicable and scientific manner. More importantly, for low- and middle- income countries like India, research can be a powerful tool to assess healthcare problems at the primary care and develop innovative solutions to strengthen health systems at the grass root level. It can be argued that, enriching research portfolio for an individual is a misleading approach whereas research has much more to offer to the society at large. In the context of in primary care, academic and implementation research is important for several distinct reasons. The practice-based research can inform better practice through communicating the concerns or findings from research with key stakeholders of primary care. If the primary care practitioners are equipped with fundamental research skills, it may help them to become better critics and evidence-based practitioners. Publishing research findings in a good scientific journal is not an easy job. A lot of time and resources are often required from the submission process to publication. There are many obstacles for publishing a research, some are inherent some are man-made. In this article we describe our experiences about the bottlenecks that we have faced while conducting medical research and we have also prescribed some possible solutions which can help to the researchers in future while conducting medical research.

[Spams in doctors' mailbox: their threat to health education, to patient information and to scientific research]. / Kéretlen e-mailek az orvos postafiókjában: ezek veszélyei az egészségnevelésre, a betegtájékoztatásra és a tudományos munkára.

Introduction: The term "spam" is applied to unwanted commercial e-mails sent to all whose e-mail addresses have been acquired by the spammers. The number of undesirable e-mails is growing in the health-care related areas as well. The targets of health-care related spams are laymen, physicians and academic researchers alike. Method: On the basis of 12,986 unwanted letters received in one year, the authors concluded that percentage of health-related spam is the second most common spam (27%) in relation to all spam. Most of the spam (63%) aggressively promoted purchasing of various consumer goods, but health-related spam are far ahead of the rest. The collected data were grouped by year and topic and they are analyzed by simple descriptive statistics. Spam form of cyber attacks on health care issues were divided into two: spam what is jeopardized individuals' health (e.g. medical compounds without any curing effect, misleading statement on medical device, fraudulent panacea offers, and cheating cure methods, etc.) and onslaught on medical scientific activity (pseudo-scientific congress invitation, predator journal invitation etc.). Results: The topics of spams addressed to laymen are offered for perfect healing by strange treatments, cures (31%), panaceas (19%), lifestyle advice (19%), massage (16%), brand new health-care devices (4%) and drugs for sexual dysfunction (11%). The topics of spams addressed to physicians and researchers are deluged by pseudoscientific materials: invitation for articles to be sent to no-name/fake open-access journals (68%), invitation to participate at an obscure congress (27%) or newsletters on miscellanous medical topics (5%). Conclusion: The spams offer very often relief or solution to medical problems that the present-day medical practice cannot solve perfectly (oncological, musculo-sceletal, endocrin or metabolic problems). Understandably, the patients would hold on to fake hopes - and the authentic patient education and health promotion will be neglected. These unwanted messages practically cannot be unsubscribed, and - while the spam filters are far from perfection - the victim must go through the filtered spam-dustbin in order not to miss some real messages. Unfortunately no legal regulation (neither local, nor GDPR) can block or stop the spams. The spams are misleading the laymen and jeopardise the effects of professional and responsible health promotion and health education. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(43): 1706-1710.

Open or Conventional Access: Integrity in the Process.

A wave of new publishing options has opened for nursing. This dialogue examines factors, such as quality and cost, that may influence new authors. There are numerous options for young scientists with many new journal titles and promises of a quick review and guaranteed publication. Choices between Open Access and conventional journals can be difficult since higher cost to the author does not correlate with higher quality.

How can emergency physicians protect their work in the era of pseudo publishing?

Recently scientists have been targets of pseudo journals (fake, hijacked or predatory journals). These journals provide a low barrier to publication and quick publication times compared to high quality journals and exploit the pay-to-publish system in order to charge publication fees but they provide no formal peer-review. We aim to increase awareness among emergency physicians about pseudo journals. Trying to list all of fake, hijacked or predatory journals is not the solution because new journals are launched almost everyday and the fast proliferation of journals makes it difficult to identify and list all of them. Only an understanding of the practices and markers of legitimate and predatory publishers will allow the researcher to keep pace with danger because fraud is an ever-changing field. In this review we offer basic information (our top list of strategies and potential red flags) to recognize these journals to avoid submission and suggest some solutions if a paper has already been submitted or published in these journals.