Search

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The burgeoning landscape of scientific communication, marked by an explosive surge in published articles, journals, and specialized publishers, prompts a critical examination of prevailing assumptions. This article advocates a dispassionate and meticulous analysis to avoid policy decisions grounded in anecdotal evidence or superficial arguments. The discourse surrounding so-called predatory journals has been a focal point within the academic community, with concerns ranging from alleged lack of peer review rigor to exorbitant publication fees. While the consensus often leans towards avoiding such journals, this article challenges the prevailing narrative. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes predatory practices and underscores the importance of skeptical inquiry within our daily academic activities. The authors aim to dispel misconceptions and foster a more informed dialogue by scrutinizing APCs, impact factors, and retractions. Furthermore, the authors delve into the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, addressing the generational shifts and emerging trends that challenge traditional notions of prestige and impact. In conclusion, this article serves as a call to action for the scientific community to engage in a comprehensive and nuanced debate on the complex issues surrounding scientific publishing. [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]

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]

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]

Copyright of Revista Española de Documentación Científica is the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: Th study evaluates the apparent quality of the 10 Beall's List accounting journals with the highest citation rates by investigating whether the works that cite those journals are comparable to those that cite 11 Scopus journals of similar citation impact. Design/methodology/approach: The study investigates the characteristics of the works that cited the Beall's List and Scopus journals, 2015–2020, comparing the two groups of citing works by publication type (article, book, etc.), extent of self-citation, inclusion in Beall's List and Scopus, Open Access (OA) status, publisher type, citation impact, and country/region of interest. Findings: The Beall's List accounting journals tend to be cited in less reputable outlets; they are especially likely to be cited in Beall's List journals and especially unlikely to be cited in Scopus journals. However, other evidence suggests that these journals occupy a distinctive niche. The works that cite Beall's List journals are especially likely to be OA, to be published by universities and other nonprofits, and to focus on lower-income countries. They also have relatively low journal and publisher self-citation rates. Originality/value: Beall's List accounting journals may be especially useful to scholars who rely on OA journals, who see their local universities as natural publishing partners, and who investigate topics of concern to developing countries. An increase in the number of non-predatory journals that cater to these authors' needs might help resolve the apparent problem of unmet demand for journal space. [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]

Background: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. Methods: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Results: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. Conclusions: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Napredak is the property of Croatian Pedagogical-Literary Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Predatory journals are pseudoscientific journals that charge to publish with non-existent double-blind peer review and editor's review, corrections, and indexing of questionable quality. Such journals threaten the scientific landscape. Reflecting on their impact through Aristotle's ethics and science conceptual frameworks helps to explore integrity in nursing research. Objective: To reflect about predatory publications in the production of knowledge of the nurse researchers. Main topics under analysis: This is a reflective analysis after a seven-step literature review. The analysis linked the topics of academic productivism and predatory journals with concepts such as intemperance, desire, intuitive reason and practical wisdom expressed by Aristotle in his book "From Ethics to Nicomachean". These were discussed as a deformity of the concepts of true knowledge and middle ground. Conclusion: Practical wisdom can be a valuable path for good deliberation that guides integrity. It does not represent scientific knowledge itself but rather operates on it and the results of research and their dissemination in reliable journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our motivation for writing this editorial is to alert the academic community about the risks of predatory publishing in Biology. By piggy-backing on the open access (OA) movement and taking advantage of the “publish or perish” culture in a system that prioritises quantity over quality, predatory publishing has grown exponentially in recent years and spread across all areas of knowledge. Thousands of predatory journals and books have emerged and (provided a fee is paid) they publish scientific papers and chapters without submitting them to rigorous peer review. Now there are even predatory meetings, which promise to accept talks and publish complete works for a fee, also without reviewing them properly. These profit-making machines can damage both academia and society, putting at risk the quality of science and public trust in it, the well-being of the population, the conservation of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change. We show the modus operandi behind invitations to contribute to predatory journals, books and meetings and suggest ways to separate the wheat from the chaff. Finally, we discuss the need to create regulatory agencies that perform a careful and systematic evaluation of the activities carried out by publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What can epidemiological models tell us about our potential exposure to COVID-19? What progress is being made with regard to coronavirus vaccine development? These days, the general public is asking these questions and more as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on. That there is an extraordinary level of interest in coronavirus news should come as no surprise, but this elevated interest society now has in pandemic-related science has unintended consequences that shouldn't be ignored. Studies are being rushed to publication even in well-regarded journals. Unvetted articles on so-called preprint servers have received enormous attention. Predatory journals are giving anyone with the ability to pay the opportunity to publish pseudoscience that can be amplified by mainstream news sources. Marketers are exploiting the public's desperation for protection against COVID-19 and adding a scientific sheen to dubious products. And perhaps-well-meaning experts in data science are producing a raft of arguably meaningless research, creating a distraction at best and wasting valuable resources at worst. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of predatory journals is a global threat for scientific integrity, particularly in under-resourced settings such as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A bilingual course on predatory publishing using a distance education approach was developed for Moroccan researchers as a response to the imperative need for training on research ethics to implement good scientific practices. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted to evaluate outcomes after delivering two education sessions in both French and English. Before this course, 40% of participants indicated that they don't verify journal quality before manuscript submission and most of them consider Scopus indexing and the impact factor as the best criteria for journal publication. Approximately 50% of surveyees did not have previous information on predatory journals before the webinar. Pressure to publish by supervisors, institutions of affiliation, or funding agencies, was noticed in 43.4% of participants. After the webinar course was delivered, remarkably, the proportion of participants with knowledge on predatory publishing was meaningfully increased from 48.9% to 81%. Importantly, 83.7% of participants indicated that they are motivated to share their new knowledge on predatory publishing with their colleagues. Moreover, the majority of respondents (73.8%) reported that publishing their research in predatory journals may damage their career and professional future. Promisingly, nearly a half or more of participants recommended the use of training based on distance education, surveillance of researchers by their mentors and affiliations, and social networks to increase awareness on predatory publishing. Almost all participants were satisfied with the content of the webinar. Trainers and research institutions in LMICs should benefit from the advent of distance education using webinar platforms to increase awareness on the issue of predatory publishing in their settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Scientific production is a fundamental element for the reputation of a researcher and a university in such a way that the pressure to publish becomes increasingly prevalent in academia. Objective: We seek to analyze the growing phenomenon of predatory journals as a threat to the scientific universe and the ways in which they can be identified and avoided. Methodology: Based on the international literature, the concept, characteristics and ways of identifying predatory journals are discussed, in addition to some questions that can illuminate reflections on the ethical impacts that this reality has brought to the academic environment. Results: It is evident the need to face this threat through a joint action of authors (researchers), editors, teaching and research institutions, research funding agencies, and bibliographic databases in order to guarantee that scientific communication in the most diverse fields of knowledge is carried out in ethical, transparent and defensible ways. Conclusion: It is necessary for investigators to develop a specific competence to distinguish between reliable and fraudulent journals, disregarding invitations, which are often tempting, to publish or join editorial committees of predatory journals. [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]

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]

The main purpose of this study is to identify the trends in predatory publishing and to compile a core reading list of documents on the topic of 'predatory journals.' The study examined 541 documents on the topic of 'predatory journals' indexed in the Web of Science database published between 2012 and 2021. The data set was analyzed quantitatively (bibliometric study) and qualitatively (document classification). For bibliometric analysis, parameters like year, disciplines, number of citations, countries, document types, and journals were used. The documents were classified into four groups, namely, General (326), Empirical Studies (89), Technical Specifics (71), and Cautionary Texts (55). The results of the analysis and co-relation between quantitative and qualitative parameters reveal that publications in medical sciences (221) form the majority in almost all groups. There is a steady growth in publications in all groups during 2018 and 2019. Research papers and editorial materials are greater in number. The largest number of documents are from the United States (163 documents). A large number of papers have been published in the journals Scientometrics (22) and Learned Publishing (28). The most highly cited (17) papers have been published in Nature. The core reading list of forty documents on predatory journals is the outcome of the study after examining the co-relationship between the two methods. The core reading list may assist new researchers in comprehending the various aspects of predatory journals. The article concludes with suggestions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of studies have explored the main features of predatory practices that prevail in predatory academic journals and conferences. However, not much has been investigated regarding the ways predatory journal editors convey credibility and trustworthiness when addressing scholars looking for publication outlets and, more specifically, what interpersonal resources (like proximity or engagement markers) are used to persuade them. This exploratory study draws on a dataset of fifty email messages from predatory publishers collected during the past two years. It seeks to delve into the ways predatory journal editors address "scholar customers" with the aim of persuading them to submit their work. This dataset was first coded following Hyland's models of proximity and interaction in academic texts, and then qualitatively analysed using NVivo 11 Pro. The analysis shows that (i) textual data provide direct evidence of the texts that predatory publishers send to scholars and the interpersonal dialogue they intend to build with authors in haste for publication; (ii) interactional resources abound, particularly engagement markers, which explicitly aim at building a rapport with the prospective author; and (iii) these predatory texts also contain other engagement-related elements directed to have an effect on the reader's decision for eventual submission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning research methodology is increasingly becoming an essential part of graduate medical education worldwide, with many regulatory and accreditation bodies requiring residents to participate in scholarship. Research methodology workshops have become a standard part of medical curricula; however, there is limited data on how much training on journal selection and the publication process trainees receive. The alarming growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for researchers, especially trainees and early career physicians, to distinguish these publications from reputable journals. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge of reputable and predatory publishing practices amongst medical trainees in an international medical education setting in the United Arab Emirates. A survey on credible journal practices based on the 'Think. Check. Submit' initiative was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies. Over half of the 160 respondents reported receiving prior research methodology training and 42.5% had at least one publication. The majority of the trainees selected impact factor and the quality of the peer-review process as characteristics of reputable journals. Ambiguous editorial board and rapid publication process were recognized as characteristics of predatory journals by >65% of trainees, however, 95% of all trainees were unaware of Beall's list or other resources to help select a journal for publication. 15.2% of trainees who received unsolicited emails from publishers submitted their manuscripts to the unfamiliar journals, citing peer recommendation and pressure to publish from their training programs as reasons. Trainees in the United Arab Emirates were mostly unaware of reputable publication practices and are vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. Policy and educational reform are necessary to maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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 article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus in 1999–2019. As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies. Three metrics were chosen to analyse the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output: publications in predatory journals, publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective. Study results highlight, that, firstly, publications of Ukrainian authors in predatory journals rose to 1% in 2019. Secondly, the share of publications in local journals reached the peak of 47.3% in 2015. In 2019 it fell to 31.8%. Thirdly, though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011, but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2. To summarise, the study findings highligh, that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria. The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements. The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies. This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus. [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]

The problem of predatory journals and publishers in the health field is analyzed, identifying characteristics and the insights acquired. A review of health literature indexed in ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, and Web of Science was conducted in 2020 and 2021. The data survey was confirmed in March 2022. The analysis allowed the characterization of the phenomenon and verify the negative effects on the health sciences, and therefore a set of recommendations was written for the researchers. A growing apprehension with predatory journals and publishers was evidenced over the past few years, especially from 2015 and confirmed since 2017. Figures for 2021 and the first months of 2022 follow this increase. The Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed are the databases that show a notorious concern with health sciences. The pressure to publish, and the difficulty in discerning legitimate journals from the illegitimate one foster a favorable environment for the proliferation of questionable publications. Researchers should assume good research practices in a demanding and informed attitude on behalf of the reliability of science, by avoiding the inclusion of false, plagiarized, or manipulated data, which damage the quality of the results and conclusions, influencing scientific evidence, clinical practice, and ultimately the patients, in a negative way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to identify editorial features that can distinguish predatory and legitimate open access journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. Fifty-six journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and an equal number of journals from Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals (PPJs) were selected for a close examination. Analyses showed that these two groups of journals differed markedly in a large number of editorial features: certain publication frequencies, contact address and contact information, mean number of articles published per year, specialized focus, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editor(s)-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editorial board members, availability of the guide for authors and aims/scope sections, an APC for open access, mean APC, claimed indexation by DOAJ, provision of ethical guidelines and publishing policies, and presence of DOIs. Nevertheless, they did not differ significantly with regard to mean years of editorial activity, mention of average peer review time, mention of acceptance rate, mean number of editorial board members, mean number of editors, listing of editorial boards, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/ERIC/Scopus/Web of Science, COPE membership, and availability of ISSNs. These findings point to distinguishing editorial features that language and linguistics scholars need to consider when they look for legitimate open access journals to disseminate their research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Nursing journals offer important content on new practices and approaches to care. Unfortunately, predatory journals that use unsavory publication practices have emerged. This article shares guidance to help nurses effectively appraise information and their sources, distinguish predatory from legitimate journals, and conduct due diligence. [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]

Scientific journals represent the most important tool of communication between scientists. The key factor for the evaluation of scientists is their scientific productivity. In order for their scientific work to be positively evaluated, it is necessary for scientists to publish a considerable number of papers in journals indexed in relevant commercial databases (of which the most important are the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus). What also matters is that the published articles are highly cited. This preoccupation with numbers has changed the publishing culture and today, scientists are more preoccupied with how much and where they publish than with what they publish. The result is a significant increase in the number of journals and published papers, but this increase does not necessarily lead to the growth of science itself. Publishing pressure is often cited as a reason for scientific misconduct. This paper explores some of the biggest challenges in academia today: transparency and impartiality of the peer review process, publication of papers in predatory journals, growth of co-authorship, prolific authors, ghost writers and honorary writers. The paper will explore these challenges in the context of the Croatian Scientific Activity and Higher Education Act and the Ordinance on Academic Promotion and Advancement Requirements and Proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since the need for regular publication by the faculty in the medical institutions as per the norms of Medical Council of India's directive for academic promotion and career growth, there has been a trend for fast track publications of good research data in open-access predatory surgical journals which makes the whole publication futile and useless. A review of such predatory surgical journals is done with a word of caution and prevention of publication of scientific research in such predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory publishing is an increasingly difficult challenge to ignore because it threatens the integrity of research literature and scholarship. Still, this scholarly area is largely overlooked in journalism and media communications (J&MC) literature. This case study examines two J&MC journals from companies listed as possibly predatory by analyzing the experiences of scholars purportedly affiliated with them. Using a survey and interviews, the analysis suggests that these journals used deceptive and unethical tactics to recruit scholars as ostensible editorial board members and reviewers. Some scholars were listed without their consent or knowledge, and others asked unsuccessfully to be removed from the journals' posted list of editorial board members and/or reviewers. However, some say they find their affiliation rewarding intellectually, for their careers, and for the discipline. The findings have practical implications for J&MC scholarship, especially for developing country academics with insufficient English-language proficiency and who face publish-or-perish pressures from their universities and government higher education ministries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are frequent discussions in many research communities about publishing in predatory and questionable outlets. It is necessary to address the researchers who publish in these publications, since this problem could be resolved if researchers stopped engaging with them. One of the factors contributing to an author's decision to engage with these journals is the advantage of having more publications and editorial board involvement when they apply for a faculty position or a promotion. Fast-tracking promotions using questionable publications is an increasing problem, as scholars see the strategy working well for their colleagues. Universities are increasingly being called upon to take action. Promotion guidelines are vital for setting expectations, and more specifically pressures and incentives, when addressing the issue of questionable journals. In the case study presented in this article, new promotion guidelines have been developed at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana to discourage faculty members from publishing in questionable journals. A verification process for all publications listed in promotion applications has been implemented. Since the implementation of this scheme in October 2019, 221 researchers have applied for promotion. Our analysis shows that one fifth of submitted publications do not meet the new criteria. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the proportion of verified publications and an applicant's college or total number of listed publications. The implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is intended to highlight the issue of predatory journals and how they have been used to degrade the open-access journals to be perceived as predatory ones. Since many of the predatory journals are available for readers free of cost over the internet (which is among one of the many features of open-access journals/publications), the international wave of the scientific community against predatory journals stigmatized and victimized the entire open-access model of scientific publication to be perceived as substandard quality. This article critically analyzes the definitions of predatory journals and identified key characteristics of predatory journals. It is observed that lack of peer-review and charging high Article Processing Charges (APC) from authors are the two most common features of predatory journals, whereas open-access journals strictly adhere to peer-review criteria and have a clear guideline and information about the article processing fee. Knowingly or unknowingly, several authors mentioned that predatory journals are mostly open access, an overgeneralization of the author pay model upon which open access lies. Peer-review is an essential component of open access journals but not predatory journals; thus, considering predatory journals under the broad notion of open-access model of publication is unfair, stigmatizing and victimizing the open-access journals and keeping them at risk of degradation. Associating open-access journals with predatory ones is a nuisance as both have different aims, modus-operandi, and quality concerns. Therefore, there is a dire need to make policies to discourage predatory practices without victimizing the noble idea of open-access journals/publications. [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]

Purpose: Current research indicates problems are emerging in our current system of anonymous journal reviews. We find a proliferation of predatory journals and difficulty in identifying them and explaining the dangers of publishing them to scholars. Predatory journals claim to offer anonymous reviews, but often they do not. Methods: We employ data from The International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics as a model for transparency (n = 246). Interrater reliability correlations and chi square was used to contrast data from our literature review. Results: Although the interrater correlations were deemed moderate, our results were better than those in the baseline found in the review of literature. This type of data addressing journals is not available to the scientific community but should be. Conclusion: Based on the synthesis of the review of literature and our case study, eight recommendations are offered to improve the anonymous review process for academic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following study presents the output of predatory publications in the Peruvian universities that were included in the SCImago Institutions Rankings of 2020 during the period 2015–2019. The universities considered in this work are ones of the most established and prominent in this Latin American nation. Due to a relatively new University Law, enacted in 2014, and a National Council of Science, Technology and Technological Innovation, a research culture is starting to build-up in this country, which is reflected in its growing scientific production. However in this study, by using data from the Beall's list, Stop Predatory Journals list and the citation database Scopus, we have observed that predatory publications are infiltrating the Peruvian scientific production. Our analysis reveals that the growth of questionable publications is exponential. Financial incentives and also promotion and tenure are quite possibly the key factors as to why the rise of predatory publications is occurring in Peru. On the other hand, we indicate that the growth of predatory publications can bring about the emergence of rogue researchers and also in the long run the damage of universities' reputations. This is the first study to present an output of questionable publications in Peru and it is expected that serves the competent authorities for research as well as inexperienced and young researchers to avoid further the spread of this bad publication practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Not enough is known about what faculty understand about predatory journals, how they learn about them, and how they feel about them, which has led to insufficient education and guidance on the phenomenon. Method: A survey was sent to all publishing faculty at a mid-sized doctorate-granting university, and it received 109 responses. The survey covered faculty professional history, departmental culture and environment, criteria for journal selection, and knowledge of and experiences with predatory journals. Results: Almost all faculty had at least heard of predatory publishing and believed it to be a problem. Faculty reported that, most of the time, they learned about it through colleagues and/or the literature in their field. Yet faculty expressed uncertainty about the impact that predatory journals have on their field and expressed hesitance in penalizing colleagues for publishing in them. Discussion: Faculty understanding of fraudulent journals--and of predatory publishing overall--may be too basic for efficient application in complex situations such as exploring new publication opportunities and evaluating scholarship. This leads to incongruencies between faculty values and the courses of action they pursue. Conclusion: It is important to form a fuller picture of faculty relationships with journal publication in order to respond appropriately to their needs. The results from this study inform how academic libraries might work with colleges and other entities on campus to provide early and ongoing professional development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicine is an ever-changing science, and the pace of this change has been rapid in recent years. A researcher in an academic institution is now obliged to publish their research work for career advancement with recognition, access to grants, fellowships, etc., as secondary objectives. Besides, it is paramount for anyone engaging in active clinical practice to remain up to date with recent advances in the field. Hence, it is the author's responsibility to publish authentic data with integrity as it helps modulate opinions on a wide platform globally in today's digital age. While the pressure to publish is immense, it is vital to have a system of checks and balances before publishing and adhere to good research practices because a wrong step may bring lasting discredit to the authors. This article attempts to provide an overview for novice researchers regarding how to select an appropriate journal for publication, evaluate it in view of its reach and relevance, and how to avoid predatory journals. The article also briefly outlines the various databases available, peer-review process, important journal metrics such as impact factor and indexing, and the concept of open access in a simple language to enable young authors to select the best journal for publishing their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall's, Cabell's, Manca's, and Strinzel's list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50-500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50-3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advance of information technology has led to the significant diversification of scholarly publishing. Over the past decade, the popularity of open access in scholarly publishing has led to an unintended rise in the number of predatory journals and the growth in predatory open access (POA) publishing practices. The main goal of POA publishing is to profit from article processing charges, and thus little or no attention is given to proper peer review or to editorial / publishing standards. Most articles published in predatory journals are tainted by examples of academic ethics violations such as falsification, deception, and fraud. Moreover, the risk of citation contamination is high, as articles published in POA publications may be cited and referenced in the legitimate scientific literature, with consequences including confounding subsequent research, negatively influencing public policies, and hindering social progress and public health. However, most nurses in Taiwan remain unfamiliar with this issue. This article provides a brief review of the open access movement and insights regarding how to assess the credentials of journals and publishers before submitting manuscripts to avoid predatory journals, promote academic integrity, and contribute to the sustainable development of the nursing profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does "where to publish" affect academic staff promotion outcome? Using rational choice theory and the University of Dar es Salaam as case study, this article analyses the law and practice associated with academic staff promotion regarding "where to publish". The article finds that the University has relatively well elaborate and adequate promotion guidelines and institutional frameworks to guide on "where to publish" in line with its vision of becoming a world-class university. Nonetheless, through series of workshops with staff and heads of department as well as interviews with the University management, it was observed that there is still little understanding of "where to publish" among staff although the situation is progressively changing. Some staff prefer predatory journals due to ignorance, frequent failures and lack of confidence to publish in credible journals. Consequently, the annual promotion rate remains low suggesting high rejection of publications by the University due to predatory nature of media of publication and failure by majority staff to publish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publishing and presenting research findings are an integral part of the research. With a rapid growth in the number of journals and conferences, the task of finding the right choice has become difficult. In this article, we shall elaborate on the considerations for choosing the suitable journal publishers and conferences. [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 paper provides a critical review of the predatory journals phenomenon, which affects the field of scholarly communication in the Open Access era. It offers an analytical account of the debates, the research being done and the methodologies used, and discusses the multidimensional definition of predatory journals and of the new market for lists of 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' journals. The article identifies the main ethical and scientific issues that predatory journals raise in the Open Access publishing era and reports on the contexts that lead researchers, both young and senior, to publish in these outlets. By linking predatory journals to the field of scholarly communication, the article highlights the main issues and establishes them as research topics. The article concludes with research avenues that contribute to the analysis of mutation in digital scholarly communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]