How to avoid being duped by predatory journals

Eva Amsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q452

2024-03-07

BMJ

Abstract:Some journals capitalise on researchers’ and clinicians’ need for publications by luring them in with flattering emails, only to subject them to poor editing practices and threatening invoices. The best way to avoid this is to learn to spot the warning signs, writes Eva Amsen

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Florence Cook,Roganie Govender,Peter A Brennan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.02.005

Abstract: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.
"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.604934

2024-07-26

Abstract:Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Biology
One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers

Fernanda Santos de Oliveira Sousa,Paulo Nadanovsky,Izabel Monteiro Dhyppolito,Ana Paula Pires Dos Santos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103618

Abstract:Objectives: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. Methods: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. Results: A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. Conclusions: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science. Clinical significance: Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.
Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

Andrew M Colman,Tim Stokes,Elaine Gurr,Carolyn Tarrant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q226

2024-01-29

BMJ

Abstract:Plagiarism in published research articles is a threat to the integrity of the scientific record, and it seems to be on the increase—boosted by the growing industry of predatory publishing.1 Open access journals of dubious quality exploit researchers by charging publication fees for rapid publication without rigorous scrutiny. Demand for easy and rapid publication of articles, in turn, arises from the increasingly competitive market in academic jobs and the demand this creates for researchers to publish journal articles. Plagiarism in predatory journals threatens to erode the integrity of higher degrees and CVs, and hence potentially the expertise of doctors, scientists, and other professionals, and of the academics who train them.23We discovered in March 2022 that an article we'd published4 had been plagiarised in an obscure journal.5 We might never have known of the plagiarism had we not been alerted to it by a student who spotted the duplication. The plagiarising...

medicine, general & internal
Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Kelly D Cobey,Agnes Grudniewicz,Manoj M Lalu,Danielle B Rice,Hana Raffoul,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516

IF: 3.006

2019-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

medicine, general & internal
Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Tove Faber Frandsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214

2019-01-01

Learned Publishing

Abstract:Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.

information science & library science
What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature

Rahul Jena,Aditya Prakash Sharma,Kumar Madhavan,Ashwin Narasimha Sridhar,Kalpesh Parmar,Nikita Shrivastava

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_403_21

2022-07-02

Indian Journal of Urology

Abstract:Introduction: The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi. Methods: The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled. Results: A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals. Conclusion: Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone.
Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

Jaume Sureda‐Negre,Aina Calvo‐Sastre,Rubén Comas‐Forgas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1450

2022-02-24

Learned Publishing

Abstract:This study focuses on the phenomenon of presumed predatory scientific publications in the field of Educational Sciences, and the utilization of email by editors to request manuscripts. It examined, using content analysis methods, 210 emails received by three professors of the field of Education, at a Spanish university with different research profiles over a period of 3 months. Through analysis of the unsolicited emails a total of 139 journals and 37 publishers were identified and examined using: (a) the two main predatory journal inventories (Beall's list and Cabells' Predatory Reports), and (b) six of the major scientific bibliographic databases. The publishers and their websites were also analyzed, as well as the basic aspects of the emails' content. The majority of the unsolicited emails were from predatory journals or publishers and half of the article requests did not match the field of the recipient. In addition, it is relevant to note that more than half of the domains of predatory publishers analysed have untrustworthy security levels. The data provided relevant information on the phenomenon of predation in scientific publications in the field of Education and, most importantly, provided evidence for developing training and preventive strategies to tackle it.

information science & library science
Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish,Samira Ahmed Alsenany,Sally Mohammed Farghaly Abdelaliem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.01.003

IF: 2.272

2024-01-25

Journal of Professional Nursing

Abstract:Background Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. Results Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. Conclusion Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

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

Samantha Cukier,Lucas Helal,Danielle B Rice,Justina Pupkaite,Nadera Ahmadzai,Mitchell Wilson,Becky Skidmore,Manoj M Lalu,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1

2020-05-07

Abstract: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.
I'm worried I've been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Nikki Forrester

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01437-2

IF: 64.8

2024-05-15

Nature

Abstract:Researchers frequently receive invitations to publish in journals that they might not have heard of. Nature asked two scientists how they would check whether a publication is legitimate. Researchers frequently receive invitations to publish in journals that they might not have heard of. Nature asked two scientists how they would check whether a publication is legitimate.

multidisciplinary sciences
Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Kyle Siler,Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,Cassidy R. Sugimoto,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

IF: 64.8

2021-10-26

Nature

Abstract:To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings.

multidisciplinary sciences
Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Serhat Kurt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150

2018-01-18

Learned Publishing

Abstract:This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK . Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency . Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.

information science & library science
Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery

Amir Kachooei,Abdo Bachoura,David Hirsch,Pedro K Beredjiklian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00671

2023-02-15

Abstract:The prevalence of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery continues to increase. These journals directly solicit authors, offering the advantages of open access and quick publication rates. Solicitation typically occurs in the form of e-mail communications, and the targets are usually identified as authors who have published other works in conventional publications. These predatory journals process manuscripts without peer review and plagiarism checks and often for a substantial publication fee. As a result, the scientific value of these publications is grossly suspect and has been considered a substantial threat to the quality of scientific discourse and scholarship. This affects not only the layperson reading the works but also investigators tricked into publishing in these venues. It has been estimated that several million US dollars per year are spent on these publications and, in many instances, using monies granted by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. This review aims to study the types of solicitation, evaluate the increasing prevalence in orthopaedic surgery, and offer methods to authors and readers to identify these journals to mitigate their negative effects.
Tackling Predatory Journals in Oncology: Training Is Key!

Salma Najem,Hind Mrabti,Hassan Errihani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-24-00290

Abstract:Predatory journal is a global threat endangering the integrity of oncology research, where guidelines and recommendations are evidence-based. In this correspondence, we question regarding the problem while also providing some pertinent solutions.
Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops

Mary M. Christopher,Karen M. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2015.00022

IF: 3.471

2015-08-13

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract:Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

veterinary sciences
An Analysis of Solicitations from Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology

Grant A. Justin,Charles Huang,Michael K. Nguyen,Jessica Lee,Ian Seddon,Treven A. Wesley,Sophie J. Bakri,J Peter Campbell,Kara Cavuoto,Megan Collins,Steven J. Gedde,Andrea L. Kossler,Tatyana Milman,Aakriti Shukla,Jayanth Sridhar,Zeba A. Syed,Basil K. Williams,Fasika A. Woreta,Samir N. Patel,Yoshihiro Yonekawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.030

IF: 5.488

2024-03-15

American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology. Design Cross sectional study Methods Ophthalmologists (n=14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated. Results Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals listed on PubMed versus those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, p=0.002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, p<0.001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, p=0.01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, p=0.02). Conclusion Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

ophthalmology
Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Anna Severin,Michaela Strinzel,Matthias Egger,Marc Domingo,Tiago Barros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050270

IF: 3.006

2021-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour. Design Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database. Setting Peer review of journal articles. Participants Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons. Measurements Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year. Results Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%). Conclusion To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

medicine, general & internal
Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

Sefika Mertkan,Gulen Onurkan Aliusta,Nilgun Suphi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab032

2021-09-25

Research Evaluation

Abstract:Abstract Intensified pressure to publish is a hallmark of a rapidly evolving higher education field where the faculty of any hue cannot avoid the ‘publish or perish’ treadmill. Growing need to publish more and to do so fast have resulted in the proliferation of pseudo scholarly publications many regards as ‘predatory’. This article provides a systematic review of research studies on so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, a new but fast-growing area of research, with a particular focus on the awareness of prospective authors about so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, the profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and the causal factors encouraging authors to publish in such outlets. It synthetizes the results of research studies on the topic to identify gaps and trends in the existing knowledgebase to guide further research. Results indicate so-called ‘predatory’ articles are authored by scholars from all fields and levels of academic experience rather than by inexperienced scholars only and ‘predatory’ contributions are not limited to developing countries, suggesting geographical location and author experience fail to explain the author profile of ‘predatory’ articles. Findings of this review suggest causal factors include research evaluation policies and publication pressure that emerge from the research environment in which scholars operate authors’ limited capacity to publish in ‘legitimate’ journals and conventions of so-called ‘predatory’ publishers. This indicates meaningful action might address all these factors in combination, rather than focus on them in isolation.

information science & library science
[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]

María Francisca Abad-García

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.11.003

Abstract:This article presents an analysis of the concept of plagiarism in order to show the wide spectrum of manifestations that can be considered as such when committing a transgression of intellectual property, carried out with the intention of deceiving the authors' true contribution and the originality and novelty of the information. The article describes the concurrent circumstances in intentional plagiarism, and the damage that this misconduct causes in the credibility of the scientific system, in which authorship credit is the foundation of the academic career, of the prestige of the author in the scientific community, and the basis for research funding. Some circumstances are favouring this fraud: the pressure exerted on researchers by the criteria used for promotion and reward that prioritise the quantity of works on their quality, the existence of a market for the purchase and sale of scientific articles, and the proliferation of predatory journals that operate without or minimal ethical standards. Finally, the paper highlights the convenience of the adoption of criteria that prioritise the intrinsic quality of the work versus its quantity, including the active involvement of the institutions in the development of active policies for the prevention, detection, and punishment of the cases of potential fraud, and emphasize that, in the end, the prevention of fraud relies on the individual adoption of an ethical and responsible behaviour.

How to avoid being duped by predatory journals

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

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers

Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

I'm worried I've been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery

Tackling Predatory Journals in Oncology: Training Is Key!

Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops

An Analysis of Solicitations from Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology

Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]