Search

Key points: The expansion of open access entails a responsibility for supporting this public access with a guide to why, in an 'Age of Misinformation', research may be trustworthy.Such a guide can also provide a check on predatory journals, a fear of which may be unduly limiting researchers tapping into the expanding global scale of research activity.Journal publishing platforms offer opportunities for automating the gathering and presenting of relevant data for assessing journal adherence to scholarly standards.Industry organizations, such as ORCID, Crossref, and DOAJ, offer trust and verification networks that can be employed to further strengthen scholarly publishing integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic research writing has revolutionized the field, offering powerful tools like ChatGPT and Bard to aid researchers in content generation and idea enhancement. We explore the current state of transparency regarding generative AI use in nursing academic research journals, emphasizing the need for explicitly declaring the use of generative AI by authors in the manuscript. Out of 125 nursing studies journals, 37.6% required explicit statements about generative AI use in their authors' guidelines. No significant differences in impact factors or journal categories were found between journals with and without such requirement. A similar evaluation of medicine, general and internal journals showed a lower percentage (14.5%) including the information about generative AI usage. Declaring generative AI tool usage is crucial for maintaining the transparency and credibility in academic writing. Additionally, extending the requirement for AI usage declarations to journal reviewers can enhance the quality of peer review and combat predatory journals in the academic publishing landscape. Our study highlights the need for active participation from nursing researchers in discussions surrounding standardization of generative AI declaration in academic research writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Our policy and implementation successfully identified references from predatory publishers, which authors without hesitation agreed to remove before publication.Higher predatory reference patterns emerged among authors in low‐income countries, those with non‐English primary languages, and sole authorship.After a year of implementing our policy, the editors changed our policy and workflow to better handle references from predatory publishers cited in literature reviews and meta‐analyses.Editorial responsibility is discussed, particularly concerning support for authors from lower‐ and middle‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing 'industry'.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Emerging as a novel cybercrime, cloned (or hijacked) journals with identical ISSNs to legitimate ones have surfaced.These cloned journals employ various tactics, and this article identifies and discusses the top five.Fraudulent journals primarily focus on print‐only publications, using parallel websites to mislead researchers.Cloned journals are using videos on their homepages to deceitfully showcase indexing in databases like Scopus or Web of Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is an interview with Professor Johannes Ring, a renowned figure in the field of dermatology and venereology. The interview provides insights into Professor Ring's background, career, and influential mentors, as well as his passion for writing and editing. Professor Ring shares his experiences as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology (JEADV), discussing the challenges faced in managing a high volume of manuscripts and improving the journal's impact factor. The interview also touches on issues of scientific misconduct and predatory journals. Overall, the interview offers valuable perspectives on the field of dermatology and the importance of creating a journal that is both informative and engaging. [Extracted from the article]

The article reflects on the past 10 years of the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology (JEADV). The journal has undergone various changes, including restructuring the table of contents, introducing new sections, and revamping its cover design. It has also addressed issues such as predatory journals, transparency in the review process, and the impact of climate change on dermatology. The journal has seen an increase in article downloads and its impact factor, and it continues to attract good authors and maintain a fair and fast review process. The article concludes with expressions of gratitude to the authors, reviewers, editorial team, publisher, and support from the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology. [Extracted from the article]

In this study, by using Beall's (Scholarly open‐access, 2014; Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers, 2018) predatory journal lists as well as direct e‐mail solicitations from journals, we intentionally submitted a poorly written manuscript to 58 open‐access journals using counterfeit names and affiliations. Although there have been several studies examining the practices of questionable journals, there is a lack of research investigating the interactive processes in detail. Our analysis, then, was to provide a more comprehensive view of the underlying reasoning for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Of the 31 journals acknowledging receipt of our manuscript, 21 accepted it either unexpurgated or asked only for cosmetic revisions. Regarding 'positive responses', we point to five common flaws associated with such journals, namely that (1) they lack any interest in the researchers who are submitting manuscripts; (2) they do not judge academic writing in accordance with expected conventions; (3) they appear to be indifferent to scholarship including research design, plagiarism issues, and citation quality; (4) their review process is opaque and overly hasty, and (5) the tone they use in correspondence e‐mail messages is highly inappropriate. Based upon the investigation, it is clear that such journals' primary aim is in securing the article processing fee. Our findings paint a more comprehensive picture of questionable journal practices with the hope of disseminating such information to the broader scholarly community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study attempts to detect papers originating from the Russia‐based paper mill 'International Publisher' LLC. A total of 1,063 offers to purchase co‐authorship on a fraudulent papers published from 2019 to mid‐2022 on the 123mi.ru website were analysed. This study identifies at least 451 papers that are potentially linked to the paper mill, including one preprint, a duplication paper and 16 republications of papers erroneously published in hijacked journals. Evidence of suspicious provenance from the paper mill is provided: matches in title, number of co‐authorship slots, year of publication, country of the journal, country of a co‐authors and similarities of abstracts. These problematic papers are co‐authored by scholars from at least 39 countries and are submitted to both predatory and reputable journals. This study also demonstrates collaboration anomalies in questionable papers and examines indicators of the Russia‐based paper mill. The value of co‐authorship slots offered by 'International Publisher' LLC from 2019 to 2021 is estimated at $6.5 million. Since this study only analysed a single paper mill, it is likely that the number of papers with forged authorship is much higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Field evaluations of management manipulations are rarely conducted, in part because they are difficult to design and require large sampling effort. However, many commonly used management approaches have <50% success rate, indicating the need for more research. Herein, we provide a case study illustrating how historic standard sampling data from Oklahoma were used to design robust before–after control–impact study designs to evaluate the effectiveness of stocking saugeye Sander vitreus × S. canadensis as a predatory control for stunted White Crappie Pomoxis annularis populations. Comparing six manipulated lakes with six reference lakes (no saugeye stockings), we found that proportional size distribution, proportional size distribution of preferred‐size fish, and mean length at ages 1 and 2 of White Crappie all improved after stockings, but still fell short of statewide median values. Further, similar improvements in these metrics also occurred in reference lakes, suggesting they were likely caused by regional patterns (flood/drought or temperature effects) rather than management intervention. Thus, we conclude saugeye stockings are not likely to routinely improve stunted White Crappie fisheries. We encourage managers who have historic data to use these data to robustly evaluate management interventions (as illustrated in this study), because our field needs additional information regarding when management interventions will be most effective, versus when they may not have the desired outcome. These historic data sets have considerable utility in providing this type of information. Our case study illustrates the importance of replication and reference lakes to avoid erroneous conclusions in such evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus‐indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower‐ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To enhance open access (OA) journal publishing environments, this study proposed and applied a diagnostic framework for OA journal publishing. The framework includes three dimensions: OA policy establishment and disclosure, OA sustainability and journal openness quality. By applying this framework to nine OA journals in the field of science and technology in Korea, challenges faced by OA publishing were uncovered. For the dimension of OA policy establishment and disclosure, it was found that participants had lower perceptions of the importance of OA‐related financial disclosure and archiving policies compared with copyright policies. The dimension of OA sustainability was recognized as critical among participants. Finance was recognized as the most critical component of OA sustainability. Financial sources were mostly internal funding and article processing charges (APC), and participants perceived the current financial status of their journal positively. However, they were concerned about long‐term financial security. For the journal openness quality dimension, the participants were hesitant in disclosing reviews and reviewers, which can facilitate the prevention of fake peer review of predatory journals. Based on the findings, the article discusses how the challenging issues identified could be addressed. The results of this study may provide a guide for OA policy and OA system development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: A journal is inanimate and incapable of predation, hence there is no such thing as a predatory journal.The predators are the publishing company CEOs, journal owners and other complicit people.Those committing fraud and identity theft should be prosecuted.Less time and effort should be spent on scholarly investigations.More time and effort should now be devoted to prosecutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey‐based cross‐sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high‐quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars engage with so‐called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs and the possibility of fast track faculty positions or promotion. It has been claimed that fast tracking promotion by using predatory publication outlets is an increasing problem. This study analyses the authors publishing in predatory journals with a focus on authors repeatedly publishing in predatory journals. In this study, a set of so‐called predatory journals indexed in Scopus was used. The data included 243,396 authorships of articles and reviews published from 2004 to 2021 by 169,742 unique authors. This study finds that 55% of the authors publish in one of these journals only once, 34.5% publish 2–5 times in these journals, 6.3% publish in them 6–10 times, and 4.2% publish more than 10 times. Furthermore, this study finds that the mean and median number of articles and reviews is correlated with the number of articles and reviews in predatory journals. Finally, authors publishing in predatory journals do not confine themselves to these journals and also publish in validated journals as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors‐in‐chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs. These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences. The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower‐middle and upper‐middle‐income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high‐income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a response to a letter to the editor regarding an article titled "Who are the most highly cited forensic scientists in the United States." The author of the response explains that citation databases have been used since the 1960s to evaluate scholarly publications, and the database used in the article was developed by a team from Stanford University. The letter to the editor raises concerns about mega-authorship and the attribution of credit to individual authors on multi-authored papers. The author also discusses the limitations of the h-index and the rise of predatory journals in scholarly publishing. The use of citation databases in forensic science and jurisprudence is also mentioned as a potential tool for verifying the credentials of expert witnesses. [Extracted from the article]

Aim: To evaluate the use of the three standard definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in the contemporary literature. Methods: A search was undertaken of the US National Library of Medicine 'PubMed' database for all research articles listed under 'sudden infant death syndrome' or 'SIDS', from 2019 to 2021 accessible through the University of Adelaide library. Results: 564 papers had keywords 'sudden infant death syndrome' or 'SIDS'. 300 papers were not included in the study as they were not written in English, SIDS was not the primary focus, publishing was in predatory journals, or they were Letters to the Editor, commentaries, technical reports, reviews or editorials. The remaining 264 papers consisted of 172 papers without a standard definition, including reports without definitions, with idiosyncratic or incorrectly quoted definitions or with incorrect referencing (65%), and 92 with one of the three standard definitions either quoted in full in the text or correctly referenced (35%). Conclusion: Nearly two‐thirds of peer‐reviewed publications on SIDS listed on PubMed over the past three years have not quoted or referenced accepted definitions. Interpreting research conclusions and monitoring trends in SIDS mortality will be extremely difficult if different population subgroups are being targeted by different research groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open access (OA) publishers compiled by Jeffrey Beall was examined to determine the effect of their inclusion upon authors, and a possible bias against OA journals. Manually collected data from the publication archives of a sample of 250 journals from Beall publishers reveals a strong tendency towards a decline in their article output during 2012–2020. A comparison of the subset of 506 Beall journals indexed in Scopus with a benchmark set of other OA journals in Scopus with similar characteristics shows that Beall journals reveal as a group a strong decline in citation impact over the years, and reached an impact level far below that of their benchmarks. The Beall list of publishers was found to be heterogeneous in terms of bibliometric indicators but to be clearly differentiated from OA journals not included in the list. The same bibliometric comparison against comparable non‐OA journals reveal similar, but less marked, differences in citation and publication growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing. Design: This study used a cross‐sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research‐intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools. Findings: The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available. Conclusion: This study examined how schools of nursing in research‐intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low‐quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided. Clinical relevance: Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The systematic review of the research reported in this paper was conducted within the context of efforts to understand and combat predatory publishing, a new but fast‐growing area of research. It synthesizes the trends observed in knowledge production in predatory publishing, with a particular focus on the volume and distribution over time within different journals. It also looks at the composition of the predatory publishing literature in terms of the type of study, methods, topics, field of study, and contexts where research was conducted. Data were extracted from ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus and identified 228 articles for evaluation published in 171 journals. The results demonstrate that the literature on predatory publishing is new but fast growing, with 88.6% of studies published since 2016. Only 37.3% reported empirical research, and the majority of these were quantitative studies with weak statistical tests. Medical journals carried the most articles. We conclude that scholarship on predatory publishing is in the early stages of development, and it is thinly distributed across journals, fields, and research contexts. It was surprising to find no studies in leading higher education journals, and this study reveals a research area that is still developing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 2009 and 2012, Jeffrey Beall published four articles which analysed 18 publishers (17 of which he identified as predatory). He also introduced the term predatory in the context of scientific publishing. In 2012, he started Beall's List, which maintained a list of predatory publishers and journals. This became a valuable resource for those who wanted to know if a journal was legitimate, although others were very critical of the list. This article considers what he wrote and the list he developed and the criticisms that have been levelled against Beall's list. Beall's legacy can be considered to ensure that the problems of fraudulent or inappropriate publishing practices are highlighted and that the scientific community remains aware of the problem. Unfortunately, his legacy has not led to an eradication of predatory journals, and the problem appears to have become worse in the past decade. Although there is opportunity to build on his legacy, there have been few practical moves, and this article suggests that there is an opportunity for clearer, more universally accepted guidelines and approval criteria for quality journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promise of open access for the global South has not been fully met. Publishing is dominated by Northern publishers, which disadvantages Southern authors through platform capitalism and open access models requiring article processing charges to publish. This article argues that through the employment of bibliodiversity — a sustainable, anticolonial ethos and practice developed in Latin America — the South can reclaim and decolonize open access and nurture scholarly communities. Self‐determination and locality are at the core of bibliodiversity which rejects the domination of international, English‐language journal publishing. As articulated by the Jussieu Call, wide‐ranging, scholarly‐community‐based, non‐profit and sustainable models for open access are integral to bibliodiversity, as is reform of research evaluation systems. Predatory publishing exploits open access and perpetuates the marginalization of Southern scholars. Predatory journals are often also conflated with legitimate Southern journals. The article concludes with a discussion of Southern open access initiatives, highlighting large‐scale infrastructure in Latin America and library‐based publishing in Africa, which express the true spirit of open access as a commons for knowledge as a public good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays there are approximately 80 Anglophone journals that deal primarily with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and allied fields. This large array signals a sustained, if uneven, growth in DRR scholarship but also competition between the offerings of different publishers and institutions. The purpose of this article is first to summarise the development of academic publishing on DRR from its early beginnings to the present day. The paper then evaluates the current state of publishing in this field and discusses possible future trends. Next, it identifies some possible opportunities, challenges, expectations, and commitments for journal editors both within DRR and academia more broadly, including those that refer to changes in the use of terminology, the relentless increase in the number of papers submitted, the expansion and dangers of predatory journals, different peer review models, open access versus paywalls, citations and bibliography metrics, academic social networks, and copyright and distribution issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer‐review systems and business models, commonly dubbed "predatory publishing." Empirical analysis of Cabellʼs Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, "gray" journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between—if not aligning—professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high‐status journals with value and pricing power, while low‐status OA journals face "predatory" incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit‐seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower‐status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 966 allegedly 'predatory' open access publishers were examined to determine the nature of their ethical or unethical practices and the extent to which Australian academics were included on the editorial boards of their journals. An estimated 4,000 Australian academics (ca. 7% of the academic population) are on these journal boards. Of the publishers, 240 proved to be overtly fraudulent, the ethical status of the others remaining unresolved. About 86% of the Australian academics identified appeared on the editorial boards of journals belonging to those 240 publishers. Despite two decades of advocacy from librarians, there remains widespread ignorance of the existence of such fraudulent publishers, and more severe action is required. Reform proposals include naming the publisher in all references and in academic profiles and curriculum vitae. Universities are encouraged to take responsibility for publishing journals that replace those currently causing the problem. Institutions are urged to augment their current warnings and advice with formal policies, which will probably require a blacklist of unacceptable publishers. New formal policies for dealing with predatory publishers are currently being developed in some Australian universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was undertaken to learn how predatory journal articles were cited in articles published in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals. The extent of citation and citation patterns were studied. Design: A two‐phase approach was used. Methods: In Phase 1, 204 articles published in legitimate nursing journals that cited a predatory publication were randomly selected for analysis from a list of 814 articles with predatory journal citations. In Phase 2, the four predatory journal articles that were cited most frequently were analyzed further to examine their citation patterns. Findings: The majority (n = 148, 72.55%) of the articles that cited a predatory publication were research reports. Most commonly, the predatory article was only cited once (n = 117, 61.58%). Most (n = 158, 82.72%) of the predatory articles, though, were used substantively, that is, to provide a basis for the study or methods, describe the results, or explain the findings. The four articles in Phase 2 generated 38 citations in legitimate journals, published from 2011 to 2019, demonstrating persistence in citation. An evaluation of the quality of these articles was mixed. Conclusions: The results of this study provide an understanding of the use and patterns of citations to predatory articles in legitimate nursing journals. Authors who choose predatory journals as the channel to disseminate their publications devalue the work that publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play in scholarly dissemination. Likewise, those who cite these works are also contributing to the problem of predatory publishing in nursing. Clinical Relevance: Nurse authors should not publish their work in predatory journals and should avoid citing articles from these journals, which disseminates the content through the scholarly nursing literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing has become a much‐discussed and highly visible phenomenon over the past few years. One widespread, but hardly tested, assumption is the idea that articles published in predatory journals deviate substantially from those published in traditional journals. In this paper, we address this assumption by utilizing corpus linguistic tools. We compare the 'academic‐like' nature of articles from two different journals in political science, one top‐ranking and one alleged predatory. Our findings indicate that there is significant linguistic variation between the two corpora along the dimensions that we test. The articles display notable differences in the types and usage of keywords in the two journals. We conclude that articles published in so‐called predatory journals do not conform to linguistic norms used in higher‐quality journals. These findings may demonstrate a lack of quality control in predatory journals but may also indicate a lack of awareness and use of such linguistic norms by their authors. We also suggest that there is a need for the education of authors in science writing as this may enable them to publish in higher‐ranked and quality‐assured outlets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared three known predatory nursing journals to determine the percentage of content among them that was plagiarized or duplicated. A serendipitous finding of several instances of plagiarism via duplicate publications during the random analysis of articles in a study examining the quality of articles published in predatory journals prompted this investigation. Design: The study utilized a descriptive, comparative design. All articles in each journal (n = 296 articles) from inception (volume 1, number 1) through May 1, 2017, were analyzed. Methods: Each article was evaluated and scored electronically for similarity using an electronic plagiarism detection tool. Articles were then individually reviewed, and exact and near exact matches (90% or greater plagiarized content) were paired. Articles with less than 70% plagiarized scores were randomly sampled, and an in‐depth search for matches of partial content in other journals was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Findings: The extent and direction of duplication from one given journal to another was established. Changes made in subsequent publications, as a potential distraction to identify plagiarism, were also identified. There were 100 (68%) exact and near exact matches in the paired articles. The time lapse between the original and duplicate publication ranged from 0 to 63 months, with a mean of 27.2 months (SD =19.68). Authors were from 26 countries, including Africa, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Articles with similarity scores in the range of 20% to 70% included possible similarities in content or research plagiarism, but not to the extent of the exact or near exact matches. The majority of the articles (n = 94) went from Journal A or C to Journal B, although four articles were first published in Journal B and then Journal A. Conclusions: This study found a substantial level of plagiarism via duplicate publications in the three analyzed predatory journals, further diluting credible scientific literature and risking the ability to synthesize evidence accurately to inform practice. Editors should continue to use electronic plagiarism detection tools. Education about publishing misconduct for editors and authors is a high priority. Clinical Relevance: Both contributors and consumers of nursing literature rely on integrity in publication. Authors expect appropriate credit for their scholarly contributions without unethical and unauthorized duplication of their work. Readers expect current information from original authors, upon which they can make informed practice decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The companies publishing predatory journals are an emerging problem in the area of scientific literature as they only seek to drain money from authors without providing any customer service for the authors or their readership. These predatory journals try to attract new submissions by aggressive email advertising and high acceptance rates. But in turn, they do not provide proper peer review, and therefore, the scientific quality of submitted articles is questionable. This is important because more and more people, including patients, are reading such journals and rely on the information they provide. Consequently, predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical science, and it is crucial for scientists, physicians and even patients to be aware of this problem. In this review, we briefly summarize the history of the open access movement, as well as the rise of and roles played by predatory journals. In conclusion, young and inexperienced authors publishing in a predatory journal must be aware of the damage of their reputation, of inadequate peer review processes and that unprofitable journals might get closed and all published articles in that journal might be lost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter comments on a recent article by Laakso et al. (10.1002/asi.24460), in which the disappearance of 176 open access journals from the Internet is noted. One reason these journals may have vanished is that they were predatory journals: a possibility the original paper did not consider. The delisting of predators from the Directory of Open Access Journals in 2014 and the abundance of predatory journals and awareness thereof in North America parsimoniously explain the temporal and geographic patterns Laakso et al. observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct. The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality. The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape. The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The scientific community depends on high-quality peer-reviewed research, which is being polluted with pseudoscience published in fake journals that have exploited the open-access model. This 'predatory publishing' has made its way into the field of dermatology. In a recent study, we identified and listed these journals. Methods The 'predatory rate' was calculated for 76 journals in order to rank the journals based on specific criteria associated with unethical publishing. Results Of the 76 journals, 89.5% were classified as predatory journals and the remaining as journals involved in predatory practices. Conclusion The field of dermatology is not immune to predatory publishers. This study validates Beall's list as well as other previous studies. Strategies to a solution include spreading awareness throughout academic institutions and dermatology departments as well as avoiding publishers that are involved in predatory practices. However, some journals may be able to make necessary adjustments and become legitimate contributors to the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addition, quality includes an element of relevance and timeliness that will make an article useful or not to its target audience - an article in one journal may not be suitable (or considered quality) in another. This reputation is not quantifiable and so only works within relatively closed communities and operates to both exclude articles felt unsuitable and to improve and include articles and authors considered useful. When making any decision, editors need to balance the article's value to their community, and this may lead to a type of censorship - rejecting articles that could have value elsewhere. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses some important issues for authors to consider when choosing the right journal for a manuscript. Submitting to predatory journals should be avoided due to invariably fees that might not be apparent when starting the submission process. Checking major databases and seeing if the journal is indexed are recommended to know if a publisher is predatory. Choosing a journal that publishes more issues annually is likely to result in the manuscript being published more promptly.

How to best measure journal performance remains a controversial issue. Perhaps submission numbers tell us more than impact factors, since submission rates reveal how much authors appreciate overall journal performance. From 2014 to 2017, Acta Physiologica had an FWCI of around 1.15, meaning that the articles appearing in our journal receive around 15% more citations than the articles in their individual field and year. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the rise in predatory journals or more particularly the open access journals. It discusses how such journals mostly do not have a review system and how they just abuse the system for money, and how the articles copy genuine articles from elsewhere and become published online with fictitious names or addresses.

An editorial is presented on how to to evaluate a predatory journal. Topics mentioned include the invitations from new open access journals that are not legitimate, the lack of editorial review process and fake science papers that are computer generated, and the guidelines in evaluating the journal.