Search

In recent times, there has been a proliferation of questionable practices in research publishing, for example, via predatory journals, hijacked journals, plagiarism, tortured phrases and paper mills. This paper intends to analyse whether journals that had been removed from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) in 2018 due to suspected misconduct were cited within journals indexed in the Scopus database. Our analysis showed that Scopus contained over 15 thousand references to the removed journals identified. The majority of the publications citing these journals came from the area of Engineering. It is important to note that although we cannot assume that all the journals removed followed unethical practices, it is still essential that researchers are aware of the issues around citing journals that have been suspected of misconduct. We suggest that research libraries play a crucial role in training, advising and providing information to researchers about these ethical issues of publication malpractice and misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals (PJs) publish research with little to no rigorous peer review in exchange for money. It is unclear what proportion of researchers is vulnerable to PJs and which factors are associated with vulnerability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of African neurosurgery researchers to PJs and identify their correlates. A 3-part electronic survey in English and French versions was distributed via social media to African consultants and trainees from November 1 to December 1, 2021. Bivariable relationships were evaluated with χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman ρ correlation, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were 101 respondents to the survey (response rate 56.1%). Respondents had mean age of 34.9 years, 82.2% were male (n = 83), 38.6% were consultant neurosurgeons (n = 39), and 33.7% were from Central Africa (n = 34). Of respondents, 66 had published ≥ 1 articles in the past, and 13 had published at least 1 article in a PJ. A PJ had contacted 34 respondents via e-mail, and 8 respondents had reviewed articles for a PJ. The Think. Check. Submit initiative and Beall's list were familiar to 19 and 13 respondents, respectively. Publication in PJs was correlated with the respondent's age (R = 0.23, P = 0.02) and total scholarly output (R = 0.38, P < 0.01). Young African neurosurgery researchers are vulnerable to PJs primarily because they are not familiar with the concept of PJs or how to identify them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case reports and interesting images are valuable contributions to the radiology literature as they provide unique insights into uncommon conditions and rare presentations. Additionally, they serve as a rapidly expanding live image atlas and, therefore, can help radiologists to improve their diagnostics skills. However, due to high rejection rates and an increasing number of predatory publishers, publishing radiology case reports remains a daunting task for junior researchers. To overcome these challenges and ensure timely dissemination of their research findings, authors should consider several factors when selecting a target journal for case report publications. In this primer, we have summarized key considerations in journal selection and highlighted reputable journals that welcome radiology case reports. • Case reports (CR) and interesting images (IM) offer hands-on experience with publication process for junior researchers. • CR and IM function as a dynamic image atlas, aiding radiologists in the diagnosis of rare or challenging diseases. • Authors should consider the credibility, visibility, and readership of the journal to avoid predatory publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Professionalism is a core competency that is difficult to assess. We examined the incidence of publication inaccuracies in Electronic Residency Application Service applications to our training program as potential indicators of unprofessional behavior.Study Design: We reviewed all 2019-2020 National Resident Matching Program applicants being considered for interview. Applicant demographic characteristics recorded included standardized examination scores, gender, medical school, and medical school ranking (2019 US News & World Report). Publication verification by a medical librarian was performed for peer-reviewed journal articles/abstracts, peer-reviewed book chapters, and peer-reviewed online publications. Inaccuracies were classified as "nonserious" (eg incorrect author order without author rank promotion) or "serious" (eg miscategorization, non-peer-reviewed journal, incorrect author order with author rank promotion, nonauthorship of cited existing publication, and unverifiable publication). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for demographic characteristics to identify predictors of overall inaccuracy and serious inaccuracy.Results: Of 319 applicants, 48 (15%) had a total of 98 inaccuracies; after removing nonserious inaccuracies, 37 (12%) with serious inaccuracies remained. Seven publications were reported in predatory open access journals. In the regression model, none of the variables (US vs non-US medical school, gender, or medical school ranking) were significantly associated with overall inaccuracy or serious inaccuracy.Conclusions: One in 8 applicants (12%) interviewing at a general surgery residency program were found to have a serious inaccuracy in publication reporting on their Electronic Residency Application Service application. These inaccuracies might represent inattention to detail or professionalism transgressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The sudden increase of questionable or predatory journals has raised concerns in the medical literature. The aims of this study were to identify potentially legitimate and questionable trauma journals and to assess the applicability of criteria previously proposed in the literature to distinguish them.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify journals using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Presumed legitimate journals were identified using nine databases (Directory of Open Access Journals, PubMed, Web of Science, etc.). Presumed questionable journals were identified using Google Search/Scholar, emails received and former Beall's lists. Scientific active English journals whose titles contained the words injury or trauma were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected journals and extracted information from their websites. Criteria to differentiate journals status were based on two lists proposed by Shamseer et al. (2017; salient characteristics) and Wicherts (2016; transparency of peer review's items) and treated as dichotomous variables. Applicability of criteria to distinguish journal status was assessed using Fisher's exact test.Results: Following duplicate removal, 54 potentially legitimate and 30 potentially questionable active English journals were included. Among 13 salient characteristics, seven were found to distinguish potentially legitimate from potentially questionable trauma journals: the presence of fuzzy images or spelling and grammar errors on the website, homepages targeting authors, request to submit manuscripts by email, the absence of a retraction policy, promise of rapid publication and copyright claims. However, only 3/14 of Wicherts' items were associated with journal status: journal's website highlights issues of publication ethics, the journal has clear guidelines concerning sharing and availability of research data, and journal allows authors to indicate names of (non-) desired reviewers.Conclusions: Eighty-four active English trauma journals were identified. Among 27 criteria, 10 were found to determine trauma journals status related to their scientific legitimacy. Though no single criteria is foolproof, these criteria may be helpful to authors, readers, and reviewers when assessing potential legitimacy of scientific trauma journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Le modèle de publication en accès ouvert « auteur-payeur », apparu en 2002, attribue à l'auteur ou son institution les frais de traitements des articles dus à la revue après acceptation, pour un montant de quelques centaines à plusieurs milliers d'euros. De nouveaux éditeurs, aux objectifs purement commerciaux, ont surgi vers la fin des années 2000, qui proposent à des auteurs naïfs et/ou désireux d'étoffer rapidement leurs curriculum vitae par des publications dans des « revues prédatrices ». Elles sont caractérisées par des sollicitations agressives par courriels, un manque d'éthique, l'absence de précisions sur l'éditeur et le comité éditorial, la pauvreté de l'examen critique par les pairs, des auteurs venant préférentiellement de certains pays, des frais de traitement des articles non spécifiés et plus faibles, une absence d'indexation et la promesse d'une publication rapide. The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Les conséquences délétères des revues « prédatrices » sont nombreuses, que le chercheur leur ait soumis son travail naïvement ou en connaissance de cause : travaux peu/pas lus par la communauté internationale en l'absence d'indexation et disparition de toute trace numérique en l'absence d'archivage. La réputation des chercheurs mais aussi des universités et des organismes de recherche, comme le crédit de la science auprès des citoyens, peuvent être durablement dégradés. Ces revues, en libre accès sur le modèle auteur-payeur, représentent autant de ressources indisponibles pour les revues légitimes. Une mobilisation conjointe de tous les acteurs concernés est nécessaire : chercheurs, universités et facultés de médecine, sections du conseil national des universités, éditeurs de revues légitimes, organismes de recherche, sociétés savantes, comités d'éthiques, financeurs, médias et décideurs politiques. Publier dans une revue prédatrice est désormais une méconduite scientifique. The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals, which are a major concern of the academic community, generally do not properly fulfill the reviewing and editorial processes which are the most important pillars of scientific communication. In line with the principle of the accumulation of science, the papers that have not been faithfully reviewed in these journals cause a bad effect on the scholarly communication. In this study, the impact of 17 journals with addresses in Turkey in Cabells' Predatory Report (formerly Cabells' Journal Blacklist) to the literature were examined. For this purpose, the journal and article level descriptive statistics were examined for the aforementioned journals, and analyses were made for the citations from the papers published in the journals indexed in the Web of Science citation database. A total of 3427 papers were published in these journals, which started to be published between 2010 and 2015, and 389 citations were made to these papers from the journals listed in the WoS. Such highest citations come from Turkey (24.16%), then China (7.20%) addressed papers. In addition, although there are no papers in fields such as art, humanities and physics, it has been seen that there are citations to papers from these fields. This is important in terms of showing the widespread impact of science. A paper published without serious peer review in any predatory journal affects all fields of science in terms of its method, findings and discussions. Therefore, to reduce the misleading or false effect of predatory journals on the literature, a more skeptical behavior should be displayed about citing the papers published in these journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of blacklists, as those that are employed in academic publishing, is problematic with or without biases, but with biases it is even more troubling. This is a theoretical paper that provides insights into the problems of using blacklists for research or for assessing a scholar's output. Biases may appear before an investigation is undertaken as well as after. We also explore the case of a low likelihood of including a non-predatory journal in a blacklist and with a decent power of criteria to detect a true predatory journal. In such an "ideal" list, unfortunately the false discovery rate (FDR) increases as the number of qualities postulated pre-study increases. In addition, the FDR will be biased downwards if the assessor deliberately starts with the assumption that the choice is binary (predatory or not) by lumping qualities together. When bias is introduced also at the post-study level, this further increases the chances that many of the predatory discoveries are false. The issue of bias in predatory publishing has not yet been discussed, and the presence of this factor in the debate on this important issue in academic publishing is relevant to all academics today. • Blacklists may carry high false discovery rates (FDRs). • Without biases the FDR of such lists can be large. • Adding human biases will cause a higher FDR. • Deliberately reducing choice to predatory or not causes a downward bias in FDR. • Blacklists have true and false positives but suffer from human biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of predatory journals is constantly growing and creating a major threat. Researchers in biomedical sciences should be aware of predatory publishers and be able to recognize them. The aim of this study is to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge about predatory journals both before and after showing them an infographic explaining these journals and their publishing model. This study was conducted with a sample of biomedical researchers and students. Subjects answered two questionnaires, one before explaining a designed infographic to each participant through a direct face-to-face interview. A total of 158 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 22.6 (±1.72) years. They were 122 (77.2%) undergraduates and 36 (22.8%) graduate students. The median number of research projects our subjects participated in was 1 (0–5), and the median number of published projects was 0 (0–3). Awareness of predatory journals or Beall's List improved from 7% and 2.5%, respectively, before the infographic to 97.5% and 94.9% after the infographic. Our results indicate the beneficial use of the designed infographic to improve young researchers' awareness of predatory journals. We encourage research institutions and universities to effectively spread awareness of predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory open access is a controversial publishing business model that exploits the open-access system by charging publication fees in the absence of transparent editorial services. The credibility of academic publishing is now seriously threatened by predatory journals, whose articles are accorded real citations and thus contaminate the genuine scientific records of legitimate journals. This is of particular concern for public health since clinical practice relies on the findings generated by scholarly articles. Aim of this study was to compile a list of predatory journals targeting the neurosciences and neurology disciplines and to analyze the magnitude and geographical distribution of the phenomenon in these fields. Eighty-seven predatory journals operate in neurosciences and 101 in neurology, for a total of 2404 and 3134 articles issued, respectively. Publication fees range 521–637 USD, much less than those charged by genuine open-access journals. The country of origin of 26.0–37.0% of the publishers was impossible to determine due to poor websites or provision of vague or non-credible locations. Of the rest 35.3–42.0% reported their headquarters in the USA, 19.0–39.2% in India, 3.0–9.8% in other countries. Although calling themselves “open-access”, none of the journals retrieved was listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. However, 14.9–24.7% of them were found to be indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central, which raises concerns on the criteria for inclusion of journals and publishers imposed by these popular databases. Scholars in the neurosciences are advised to use all the available tools to recognize predatory practices and avoid the downsides of predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing demand on academics and researchers to publish has led to the development of fake journals (also known as predatory journals). Such journals lack peer review and precipitate unfair criticism toward legitimate open access journals. Predatory journals tend to bombard a researcher's mailbox on a daily basis, inviting authors to submit a review/manuscript/opinion/short case to their journal while promising expedited publication - against a fee. This study assessed the unsolicited emails received over the period of November 2017 by a young and by a senior researcher. The young researcher received a substantially higher amount of emails (n = 101) compared to the senior researcher (n = 23). The article processing costs for solicited journals received, ranged between $49 and $3019. These journals are almost all only indexed in Google Scholar and do not display any meaningful journal metrics. Furthermore, the majority of the unsolicited emails were not relevant to the researcher's field of study. Therefore authors and readers alike should evaluate emails received with regard to journal legitimacy prior to submission of work to possibly predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]