Search

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are many misleading scientific metrics that are not known to the scientific community, particularly novice researchers. There is limited research in the area of misleading metrics, particularly related to business journals. Therefore, this research aims to examine the use of misleading metrics by business journals, the most popular misleading metrics, and countries contributing to the website traffic for such metrics. We used Scimago ranking for business journals and examined the website of each for the use of misleading metrics. Further, we used a domain-based approach by gathering data from Search Engine Optimization websites (i.e., Alexa and Ubersuggest). Only a few Scopus-indexed, low-quality business journals used misleading metrics on their website. The most common misleading metrics were International Scientific Institute, Open Academic Journals Index, CiteFactor, IndexCopernicus, and International Scientific Indexing. In addition, Indian authors were the most frequent visitors of the websites of misleading metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals are continuing to expand across disciplines and target researchers via different media such as websites and spam emails to potential authors. While multiple studies have described characteristics of predatory journals, less research has been on done on authors' perceptions of and experiences with predatory journals. In this paper, by using a data science approach, we developed a tool that analyzes the content of social media and summarizes what users (authors) have shared about predatory journals. This tool is useful in understanding the current concerns of researchers about predatory journals and examining current activities of these journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which are challenging scholarly publishing. Legitimate impact factors are used by authors and editors to get a general idea of the audience, if any, for a particular piece or journal. The bogus metrics only add confusion in support of the cybercrimes of their initiators. In this paper, we discuss bogus impact factors, victim countries, and try to clarify the phenomena for both authors and editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the integrity threats of the expanding open access (OA) movement. Topics include the predatory open access journals (POAJs), the publishing threats of hijacked journals and journal phishing, and the ethical implications of hijacked journals. Several charts are also presented which show the similarities and differences between phishing and hijacking, the hijacked journals from Google page ranking, and the metrics for citation level assessment of journals and researchers.

The article discusses the topic of predatory journals and their publication criteria, stating that such journals requires enough resources of research to support its aid and deep observation of the predatory practices in medical journals through open access publishing system.