Search

Journalism and mass communication (J&MC) research examines crucial issues in democratic and undemocratic societies, such as freedom of expression, misinformation and disinformation, government regulation of communications, defamation and invasion of privacy, media technologies and economics, and journalists' professional practices. Unethical scholarship practices may weaken societal and public policy goals of fair, independent, and accurate reporting and transparent governance. This case study analyses how one predatory J&MC journal recruits authors to submit their work and why some scholars succumb to such invitations. This research contributes to both the growing scholarship about predatory publishing practices and to further understanding of how such journals deceptively exploit authors willing to pay for publication without the traditional peer review and editing. This study uses probability sampling of authors who published 504 articles in the journal between 2011 and 2021 to seek their participation in a survey and interviews. Most authors are from developing countries, but others are from the developed world, including faculty at top-tier research institutions. Surprisingly, some published in this journal despite knowing its predatory nature. In such instances, they might benefit from a lack of policies at their universities discouraging publication in predatory journals and may receive benefits from those institutions. Some authors regretted publishing in the journal, especially if they were unaware of its predatory character, because it deprived them of an opportunity to disseminate that research in legitimate academic venues. There are significant societal and political implications as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to understand the context and drivers of researchers' decision to submit a manuscript to a journal with questionable practices. Using OMICS as a case study and asking authors for their views, the paper presents their profile, motivations and publishing experiences. The methodology is based on a questionnaire sent by e-mail to all authors of articles in journals published by OMICS (+2200). The authors were asked about (a) the factors that influenced their decision to submit their article; (b) their publishing experience with OMICS; (c) their level of satisfaction; and (d) whether or not they would repeat the experience. A total of 86 responses were collected and 18 e-mails were received. The analysis made it possible to add details to the profiles of authors already identified in the literature, but also allowed new and more nuanced profiles. This research extends our knowledge on the phenomenon of predatory publishing from the authors' feedback and provides a better understanding of the socio-economic, psychosocial and geo-political conditions that drive researchers' decisions to submit their work to a possible, potential, or probable predatory journal. At the same time, it reveals some of the strategies used by OMICS to persuade authors to submit their papers. The findings will help to inform institutional policies that seek to put in place efficient measures to combat predatory publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research community has been continuously investigating the issue of predatory journals. With the rapid development of technology and the world, online publishing has also accelerated, making it crucial to publish and disseminate scientific results as quickly as possible due to the "publish-or-perish" phenomenon. The number of open-access, online-only journals is increasing each year. Predatory publishers and journals have taken advantage of this trend by engaging in profit-driven, unethical practices. This article discusses how the predator phenomenon affects those involved in scientific communication. The research aims to address the following questions: What are the detrimental impacts of predatory journals on individuals involved in scientific communication? What causes researchers to publish in predatory journals? What is the relationship between publication pressure and publishing in predator journals? [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]

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]

The study examines the possible predatory journals in Library and Information Science research in India, including the affiliation status of the authors publishing in those predatory journals, frequency of returning authors, and country-wise distribution of authors. The paper used Beall's list to find out the predatory journals in LIS published from India. Publication trends, affiliations of authors, and the status of the 22 LIS journals under the study were critically analyzed. The result shows that the predatory journals were diminishing slowly; in 2016, there were eight active journals, while in 2021, it was reduced to four journals. Similarly, the publication trends show that the highest number of articles (398) was published in the year 2015, and it was only 66 articles in 2020. It is revealed that academics hailing from state universities (42.88%) are the highest contributors to the predatory journals, followed by professionals from government colleges (16.76%). The results indicate that predatory publishing was rampant in the early years but declined gradually. Researchers from India have published the most articles, totaling 1760 (93%), followed by those from Nigeria (64, 3.3%), Bangladesh (10), and Saudi Arabia (eight articles). It is also revealed that 21.66% (n = 438) are returning authors who have published more than one article in the sample journals. The paper discusses the role of the government and especially the University Grants Commission (UGC) in curbing the menace of predatory publishing. The authors also discuss the possible role of library professionals in stopping the plague of predatory publishing. [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]

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]

The article discusses the use and misuse of the journal impact factor (JIF), which represents the average number of citations received by a journal over a specified period of time. While the JIF is commonly used to assess the impact and quality of a journal, it has limitations and does not capture all parameters related to journal quality. The author proposes a complementary metric called the Journal Reputation Factor (JRF) that may provide a better indicator of a journal's impact and quality. The JRF would consider criteria such as the number of uninterrupted years the journal is published, association with a learned society or reputable publisher, internal review processes, low acceptance rates, and absence of predatory behavior. The article argues that these additional criteria can better reflect a journal's reputation among scientists and its overall impact. [Extracted from the article]

Between 2009 and 2012, Jeffrey Beall analyzed 18 publishers, which were publishing 1328 journals. He classified all but one of the publishers as predatory. In this paper we look again at these publishers to see what has changed since that initial analysis. We focus on the same 18 publishers so that we have a direct comparison with Beall's original analysis. One publisher has been acquired by Sage (the publisher no longer exists) and another has been acquired by Taylor & Francis (the publisher still retains its identity). Three of the publishers can no longer be found and, of the thirteen that remain, they now publish 1650 journals, an increase of 24.25% over the 1328 journals being published when Beall carried out his analysis. Other ways of carrying out this analysis, could put this increase as high as 50.14%. The increase in the number of journals being published, by fewer publishers, suggests that the problem of predatory publishing is getting worse, although this may be largely due to mega-predatory publishers which have dramatically increased the number of journals they now publish, when compared to ten years ago. Unlike Beall, rather than classifying the publishers as predatory (or not), we classify them into four categories, using data which is publicly available, rather than making a subjective decision. Two publishers are classified as category 1 (the most reputable). One journal is in category 2, four in category 3 and six in category 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to assess the growth of Open Access (OA) research journals indexed in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) during the last two decades viz., for the period 2002 through 2021 across the world. More so the growth has also been assessed at the continental and subject level. Some of the key aspects evaluated include computation of research journals indexed each year during the period of study, their corresponding growth, subject wise distribution of OA journals, leading OA journals publishing countries and various other related aspects have been evaluated. From the data analysis it emerged that in 2002, 22 OA journals were indexed in DOAJ and on July 17, 2021 the date of data retrieval, the number of OA journals indexed were found 16,589, published across 126 countries. On average each year around 830 journals are indexed in DOAJ registering an average annual growth of around 51.46%. 46% journals were indexed during the last three years, reflecting exponential growth of OA research journals from 2018 onwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'publish or perish' race among researchers force at least some of them to opt for quick outlets for publication, making them fall into the trap of predatory journals. With a strong base and history of research institutions and journals, the present study explores grooming a reasonable number of quality journals in India to tackle the menace of predatory publishing. The data presented are collected from different sources to work out the approximate minimum number of quality journals that can be strengthened using state-of-the-art technology solutions as well as internationally competitive journal editorial, review and publishing procedures. It is difficult to deal with the commercial interests of predatory publishers through academic safeguards alone. However, their negative impact can be contained through a set of action plans by various stakeholders, such as sensitizing authors about the perils of predatory publishing, training new authors about the nuances of academic publishing to facilitate their manuscripts getting accepted in good journals, strengthening Indian journals to publish more quality papers, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality scientific communication is key to the effectiveness of scientific research. After creating a scientific paper through scientific research, it is further evaluated and shared with other scientists. Based on these scientific papers, other scientists create new knowledge through new scientific papers. There is also a lot of pressure on scientists to publish papers. In the academic world, there is a certain pressure on scientists to publish the latest research as much and as often as possible. On the one hand, scientists are forced to publish a lot of papers (quantity), while on the other hand, they are required to have as much impact as possible (qual ity). Although the authors of a certain scientific field are familiar with scientific publishing in their field, the emergence of new journals makes it difficult to choose in which journal to publish their work and where a significant problem is created by the so-called predatory journals. The paper will provide an overview of indicators that can help in the selection of journals and how predatory journals can be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers' submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal's business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one's manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one's work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) once included on Beall's list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all singled them out as predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication without any form of an editorial or peer review process. Predatory publishing is just a wastage of time, money, resources, and efforts. Predatory publishers take publication fees from authors and publish articles easily and quickly even in a week or a couple of days. On the contrary, publishing in a legitimate journal is a difficult task, that demands high-quality research, a lot of time in addressing the reviewers' comments, and thus months or even years in some instances for a paper to be published. Publication of research works in legitimate journals is important for researchers for enhancing their careers and reputation. Publication in a predatory journal creates a negative reputation, therefore such publications should be avoided. The authors should be encouraged to publish their works in legitimate journals which are registered in or member of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The universities, research organizations, and funding agencies should make joint efforts to promote only those journals which are indexed in Web of Science, Scopus PsycINFO, and other authentic databases. [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]

Background: Scientific research can offer the joy of discovery. For many graduating neurosurgeons, often, a seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and only formal exposure to the world of conducting research responsibly, to write down and report the results of such research. The pressure to publish scientific research is high, but any young neurosurgeon who is unaware of how predatory publishers operate can get duped by it and can lose their valuable and hard-fought research. Hence, we have attempted to provide an overview of all potentially predatory neurosurgery publications and provide some "red flags" to recognize them. Methods: A suspected list of predatory publications was collected via a thorough review of the Neurosurgery journals listed in 4 major so-called blacklists, i.e., Beall's list, Manca's list, Cabell's blacklist, and Strinzel blacklist and then cross-referenced with UGC CARE whitelist to remove any potential legitimate journals. All journals with a scope of the Neurosurgery publication were searched using terms in the search bar: "Neurosurgery", "Neuroanatomy", "Neuropathology", and "Neurological disorder/disease". Since all predatory journals claim to be open access, all possible types of open access journals on Scimago were also searched, and thus a comparison was possible in terms of publication cost and number of legitimate open access journals when compared with predatory ones. In addition, methodologies by which these journals penetrate legitimate indexes like PubMed was investigated. Results: A total of 46 predatory journals were found and were enlisted along with their publishers and web addresses. Sixty of the 360 Neurosurgery journals listed on Scimago were open access and the fee for the predatory journals was substantially lower (< $150) when compared with legitimate journals ($900–$3000). Six types of open access types exist while a total of 26 red flags in 7 stages of publication can be found in predatory journals. These journals have penetrated indexes by having similar names to legitimate journals and by publishing articles with external funding which mandate their indexing. Conclusion: These 46 journals were defined as predatory by 4 major blacklists, and none of them was found in the UGC Care white list. They also fulfill the 26 red-flags that define a predatory journal. The blacklist detailed here may become redundant; hence "whenever in doubt" regarding a journal with "red-flags", the authors are advised to refer to whitelists to be on the safer side. Publishing in predatory journals leads to not only loss of valuable research but also discredits a researcher among his peers and can be hindrance in career progression. Some journals are even indexed on PubMed, and they have sophisticated webpages and high-quality online presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the ethical concerns related to these journals and publishing in them. These concerns are poor editorial standards with lack of proper editorial board, editorial offices, academic fraud, deception and misinterpretations, trust deficit in research literature and lack of archiving policy. It is of utmost importance that the scholarly groups, researchers, academicians, editors, editorials boards, institutions, publishers should be aware of these predatory journals, and avoid supporting these journals by not publishing in them, or being a part of their editorial board members. Faculty members should also be discouraged for knowingly publishing in them. Scholarly community should support the legitimate and valid scholarly research enterprises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2013, information entitled „Parazita folyóiratok (predatory journals)” was published on the MTMT (Hungarian National Scientific Bibliography) portal. As this summary has not been published in a journal, and most of its main findings are relevant even today, the list is (re)published, together with a state-of-theart review of predatory journals today. [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]

Introduction: Predatory journals threaten the quality, honesty, and credibility of published scholarly work. This study aimed to provide a quantitative overview of the issues of predatory publishing and journals in international literature. Materials and Methods: We searched the Scopus database for "predatory journalism and publishing" in the abstract, keywords, and title between 2012 and 2018. The Scopus tools were used online for calculations, and VOSviewer was used to construct the visualization maps. Documents were analyzed for bibliographic and citation characteristics such as publication years, languages, countries or regions, journals, articles, and authors. Results: Four hundred and eleven articles were retrieved; 31.3% were "open access;" 46.0% were original research articles. Medical journals were of varying impact. Authors from the USA and affiliated institutions were the most dominant. One author has a clearly evident dedication to the subject being the first to coin the term "predatory" journals. Visualization maps showed sparse associations between most prolific authors, journals, and institutions. Conclusions: This study is the first bibliometric analysis of the threat of predatory journalism to medical research. Increasing anxiety is evident with an uncoordinated strive to fight it. The study represents a starting point to identify and quantify the gaps in the field. It should help pinpoint possible directions and potential collaborations for future action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses systematic random sampling to compare the content of "Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers" and "Cabell's Blacklist" of journals. The Beall's List data was generated from its new site that maintains a new list besides the original list. It found that 28.5% Beall's List sample publishers are out of business, some Cabell's Blacklist journals have become ceased. The main takeaway is that among the Beall's List sample publishers with a working website for journal publishing, only 31.8% can be found on Cabell's Blacklist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of ”predatory journals”, also known as pseudo-scientific journals, poses a risk to the integrity of science and therefore medical communicators need to know about their practices. Upon receipt of a publication fee, predatory journals publish manuscripts regardless of their scientific merit, very often without any peer review, and without providing editorial services. To maximise profit, such journals disregard all aspects of scientific integrity and foster the dissemination of bad and bogus science, lobby materials, and conspiracy theories. Publishing in predatory journals can have dire consequences for authors, their careers, and the reputation of their institutions. Medical communicators can help authors avoid falling prey to predatory publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article applies an economic model to analyze the supply and demand relationship of predatory journal publishing. It uses the quantity of journals and articles as the supply index and the number of researchers as the demand index, attempting to examine how the changes in their condition will influence an economic equilibrium. Instead of using price as the determinant of market balance, the article highlights the quality of publications as the measure. It suggests that an increase in open access journal publishing has overtaken the growth of researcher population worldwide. Particularly, the rapid and massive development of predatory journals, those that lack peer review but charge for article processing fees, has resulted in a decline in publication quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: As the list of predatory journals is burgeoning, the researchers should have knowledge of calculating the predatory rate (PR) for the journals, in which they aim to publish their work and self-guard them from publishing in bogus journals. AIM AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to find out the predatory rate for various Pharmacology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here, we have examined the recently updated list (in 2017) of standalone predatory journals created and maintained by Beall, pertinent to all auspices of pharmacology including pharmacy, pharmaceutical, and pharmacognosy. The PR of various journals was calculated. RESULTS: Of 131 journals, pertinent to the pharmacology field, 45.03% of them had the PR between 0.72 and 0.84. 98.5% of journals were classified as predatory, whereas only 2 (1.53%) journals were classified in the category of predatory practice. CONCLUSION: It should be an eye-opener to the researchers, and they should deliberately select the journals to get real recognition of their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As predatory publishing has influenced the educational research community, this study sought to understand and articulate current predatory publishing practices which may render important academic research "post-truth" or "fake news" if authors are not careful where they publish and with whom. Findings suggest predatory publishers obscure publication charges, steal identities of real scholars and position them as editors of predatory journals, mimic website aesthetics of credible journals, and gather author information to further promote predatory publishing and fake academic conferences. Future research and viability of open-access publishing are addressed, as well as a discussion of academic publishing, predatory publishing, and the pressure graduate students and junior researchers often experience during the "publish or perish" process of tenure and promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the highest form of disseminating research findings. However, the process of publishing in peerreviewed journals remains a daunting task for researchers and academics in Africa. This commentary will assist authors in Africa to understand the peer-review process, to appreciate the length of time it takes for a manuscript to be published and to encourage them to publish in local peerreview journals. The authors argue that the peer-review process is essential because it acts as a quality control mechanism to ensure that valid and reliable research is published. Although peer review does not guarantee exclusive publication of reliable and valid research, it remains central in the scientific activity. Authors need to take the comments from reviewers and editors, even in cases of rejection seriously and in the positive sense, inorder to improve upon the quality of their work. Rejections by some journals happen not to be scientifically grounded. It happens that African authors suffer more from this flaw. This could justify why some naïve authors easily turn to publish in predatory journals. The authors argue that publishing in local journals is imperative for Africans scholars. Therefore, initiatives to encourage publication in these journals are highly needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work. Materials and methods: We analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrčak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies. Results: The majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from "predatory" journals. Almost all Hrčak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrčak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal's origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards. Conclusion: In order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals, or journals that charge an article processing charge (APC) to authors, yet do not have the hallmarks of legitimate scholarly journals such as peer review and editing, Editorial Boards, editorial offices, and other editorial standards, pose a number of new ethical issues in journal publishing. This paper discusses ethical issues around predatory journals and publishing in them. These issues include misrepresentation; lack of editorial and publishing standards and practices; academic deception; research and funding wasted; lack of archived content; and undermining confidence in research literature. It is important that the scholarly community, including authors, institutions, editors, and publishers, support the legitimate scholarly research enterprise, and avoid supporting predatory journals by not publishing in them, serving as their editors or on the Editorial Boards, or permitting faculty to knowingly publish in them without consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a first-hand account of the author's work identifying and listing predatory publishers from 2012 to 2017. Predatory publishers use the gold (author pays) open access model and aim to generate as much revenue as possible, often foregoing a proper peer review. The paper details how predatory publishers came to exist and shows how they were largely enabled and condoned by the open-access social movement, the scholarly publishing industry, and academic librarians. The author describes tactics predatory publishers used to attempt to be removed from his lists, details the damage predatory journals cause to science, and comments on the future of scholarly publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses issues related to the identification of predatory journals which do not offer peer review that is considered the hallmark of traditional scholarly publishing. A document was published by the World Association of Medical Editors to distinguish predatory journals from legitimate journals. Several criteria for identification of predatory journals and publishers are also compiled by librarian Jeffrey Beall.

'Predatory' publishing covers a wide range of journals with different characteristics. Society and scientists should not accept deceitful practices in science. Neither should we accept anything less than excellence from publishing houses. Therefore, we should take three measures: first, form committees for each research field to keep track of journals and publishers; second, create a forum where scientists can share their experiences of predatory journals; third, develop software to help scientists and officials spot references to predatory journals in papers and in applications for funding, promotions, or positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neurosurgery Training Sir, We are sincerely thankful for the appreciation and insightful comments in the letter entitled "Predatory Publication in India: Has the System Failed Us?" It can promote paper mills, salami publications, gifted publications, and predatory publications. [Extracted from the article]

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editors discuss various reports within the issue on topics including the origins and ethical aspects of predatory journals and the characteristics of predatory or pseudo-journals.

This article presents an editorial in which the authors warn of predatory journals, publications that exploit open access, practice sub-par peer review, and deceive authors. They comment on the importance of advisory organizations that can monitor such predatory journals and provide resources to authors and researchers to avoid such publications.

The article offers information related to the phenomenon of predatory open access publishing. It is noted that researchers can maximize the impact of their work by making their research open access, which enables readers to view, read, download, copy and distribute. Topics discussed include popularity of the concept of open access, issues related to predatory publishing in ophthalmology and launch of initiative called "Think. Check. Submit" in 2015 to raise awareness of disreputable journals.