Search

Purpose: Nowadays, many studies discuss scholarly publishing and associated challenges, but the problem of hijacked journals has been neglected. Hijacked journals are cloned websites that mimic original journals but are managed by cybercriminals. The present study uses a topic modeling approach to analyze published papers in hijacked versions of medical journals. Methods: A total of 3384 papers were downloaded from 21 hijacked journals in the medical domain and analyzed by topic modeling algorithm. Results: Results indicate that hijacked versions of medical journals are published in most fields of the medical domain and typically respect the primary domain of the original journal. Conclusion: The academic world is faced with the third-generation of hijacked journals, and their detection may be more complex than common ones. The usage of artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool to deal with the phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers. The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields. The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper. This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

At the moment, scholarly publishing is faced with much academic misconduct and threats such as predatory journals, hijacked journals, phishing, and other scams. In response, we have been discussing this misconduct and trying to increase the awareness of researchers, but it seems that there is a lack of research that presents guidelines for editors to help them protect themselves against these threats. It seems that information security is missing in some parts of scholarly publishing that particularly involves medical journals. In this paper, we explain different types of cyber-attacks that especially threaten editors and academic journals. We then explain the details involved in each type of attack. Finally, we present general guidelines for detection and prevention of the attacks. In some cases, we use small experiments to show that our claim is true. Finally, we conclude the paper with a prioritization of these attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, scholarly publishing has been faced with many distractive phenomena. Generally, most researchers are unaware of fraudulent practices now common to scholarly publishing and are at risk of becoming a victim of them. Editors also need to have sufficient knowledge about these practices. There are papers that try to increase awareness of authors about fraud in scholarly publishing, but it seems that there is no good academic resource to direct editors. In this paper, we try to present a general guideline for increasing journal quality by discussing the emerging threats to scholarly publishing and methods to avoid being victimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Around 170 early career researchers (ECRs) from 8 countries were interviewed about the whole range of their scholarly communication attitudes/behaviours during pandemic times and this paper analyses what they said about predatory journals in a wide range of scholarly communication contexts. Because of the delicacy of the topic there was just one question exclusively directed at predatory journals, which asked about policies rather than actions, which yielded nevertheless wide-ranging comments on the topic. ECRs also volunteered information on predatory journals in another half dozen questions, most notably including one on questionable research practices. The source of data was mainly the final interview of three undertaken, with some comparisons made to rounds one and two. Findings disclose the existence of a whole raft of formal and informal assessment policies/codes that direct ECRs to legitimate journals and away from predatory ones. Despite being junior, ECRs are very accultured to the criteria of what is considered as prestige and quality and believe predatory publishing is not even conceivable. They are far more concerned about low-quality research, preprints and borderline 'grey' journals. The pandemic has increased the level of questionable practices and low-quality research, but predatory journals were only singled out by a relatively small number of ECRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]