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]

Adv Pharm Bull, 2021, 11(2), 206-208 doi: 10.34172/apb.2021.023 https://apb.tbzmed.ac.ir Users' Perception of Medical Blockchain Mehdi Dadkhah 1 ID, Mohammad Mehraeen 1* ID, Fariborz Rahimnia 1, Khalil Kimiafar 2 1 Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. 16 Based on our analysis, it is expected that the research studying the tendency toward blockchain acceptance concludes the positive attitude of users toward blockchain. 7 To gather contents related to the medical blockchain, the term "title:medical blockchain" has been searched in the Reddit. Also, it reflects Reddit users as the sample of people who may interact with medical blockchain (To see the distribution of users in Reddit refer to https:// foundationinc.co/lab/reddit-statistics/). [Extracted from the article]

Predatory journals are a well-known issue for scholarly publishing and they are repositories for bogus research. In recent years, the number of predatory journals has risen and it is necessary to present a solution for this challenge. In this paper, we will discuss about a possible ranking of predatory journals. Our ranking approach is based on Beall's criteria for detection of predatory journals and it can help editors to improve their journals or convert their questionable journals to non-predatory ones. Moreover, our approach could help young editors to protect their journals against predatory practice. Finally, we present a case study to clarify our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]