Search

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]

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]

Peer review underpins the integrity of the scientific archive and has done so for over 350 years. Over the past ten years or so, this integrity has come under pressure due to the introduction of predatory publishers and journals. Papers in predatory journals have, typically, not gone through robust peer review, if any at all. If these papers enter the scientific archive, its integrity will deteriorate. Moreover, legitimate journals will cite papers from predatory journals, which further dilutes the integrity of the scientific archive. The scholarly community has struggled to address the problems brought about by predatory publishers and journals. In this paper, we propose an approach, which draws on the fine art world. They use the concept of a catalogue raisonné to list all the validated work by a given artist and, by extension, identify fakes. A scholarly version will have some differences to the art discipline, but the central idea is the same. A publisher is analyzed, through a peer reviewed paper. This catalogue can be used by authors, and other stakeholders (e.g. librarians, promotion panels and hiring committees), to make more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

This study focuses on the phenomenon of presumed predatory scientific publications in the field of Educational Sciences, and the utilization of email by editors to request manuscripts. It examined, using content analysis methods, 210 emails received by three professors of the field of Education, at a Spanish university with different research profiles over a period of 3 months. Through analysis of the unsolicited emails a total of 139 journals and 37 publishers were identified and examined using: (a) the two main predatory journal inventories (Beall's list and Cabells' Predatory Reports), and (b) six of the major scientific bibliographic databases. The publishers and their websites were also analyzed, as well as the basic aspects of the emails' content. The majority of the unsolicited emails were from predatory journals or publishers and half of the article requests did not match the field of the recipient. In addition, it is relevant to note that more than half of the domains of predatory publishers analysed have untrustworthy security levels. The data provided relevant information on the phenomenon of predation in scientific publications in the field of Education and, most importantly, provided evidence for developing training and preventive strategies to tackle it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article 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]

This letter addresses the issue of predatory journals and conferences from the perspective of Indian researchers. Predatory journals use deceptive tactics to attract researchers, promising quick publication and acclaim in exchange for high or low Article Processing Charges (APCs) without proper peer review. These journals often have names similar to reputable databases, making it difficult for researchers to distinguish them. Predatory conferences also exploit researchers by charging high fees for events with little academic value. It is important for researchers to educate themselves and their peers about predatory practices and for established journals to take a leadership role in combating this issue. Collaboration among journals, institutions, and funding bodies can help eliminate predatory practices and ensure the integrity of scholarly discourse. The National Medical Commission in India considers journals indexed in reputable databases, but there are concerns about the inclusion of potentially predatory publications and the exclusion of e-journals. Proactive measures, such as staying informed about reputable publishers and evaluating journals carefully, can help researchers avoid predatory publishers. Predatory publishing affects scientists globally, including those from high-income and low/middle-income countries. By raising awareness, being vigilant, and working together, the academic community can protect the future of scientific discourse. [Extracted from the article]

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

Cloned journals develop a mirror image of reputed journals and attract more articles than predatory journals. Journal of Positive School Psychology (JPSP) is one such Scopus indexed journal that has been cloned and used as a case study for this article. JPSP (cloned journal) has published over 3,000 articles in its last four issues (2nd to 5th) of 2022. Volume 6 No.2 (2022) is of 6,302 pages, Volume 6 No.3 (2022) is of 10,210 pages, Volume 6 No.4 (2022) is of 11,881 pages, and Volume 6 No.5 (2022) is of 4,335 pages. While the Society of Psychology and Education publishes the genuine JPSP journal, its cloned version is published by ASR Research India. We surveyed cloned JPSP authors worldwide, 512 to be precise, to investigate the causes and consequences of cloned journal publications. Pressure to publish articles in Scopus indexed journals, quick publication, ease in publication, and difficulty detecting a cloned journal, are some of the multiple causes that have led authors to publish in the cloned journals. It was interesting to note that despite the JPSP authors knowing that they have published in a cloned journal and its consequences, they wish to take the publication forward and earn academic credits. Suggestions have been offered to curb such publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory." Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. Conclusion The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root. [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]

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the number of citations received by open access articles versus subscription access articles in subscription journals in the Otolaryngology literature. Methods: Using the Dimensions research database, we examined articles indexed to PubMed with at least 5 citations published in 2018. Articles were included from Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, and American Journal of Otolaryngology. Multivariate Poisson regression modeling was used to adjust for journal, article type, and topic. Practice guidelines, position statements, or retractions were excluded as potential outliers. Results: 137 open access articles and 337 subscription access articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, with a median citation number of 8 (IQR 6-11). The most common article type was original investigation (82.5%), and the most common study topic was head and neck (28.9%). Open access articles had a higher median number of citations at 9 (IQR 6-13) when compared to subscription access articles at 7 (IQR 6-10) (P =.032). Open access status was significantly associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles when adjusting for journal, article type, and topic (β =.272, CI 0.194-0.500, P <.001). Conclusions: Although comprising a minority of articles examined in this study of subscription journals, open access articles were associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles. Open access publishing may facilitate the spread of novel findings in Otolaryngology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The text discusses the rise of predatory publishing in the scientific community. It highlights the factors that contribute to researchers becoming prey to predatory journals, such as the pressure to publish and the limited resources available to early-career researchers. Predatory journals exploit researchers who are not proficient in English and offer lower publication fees and faster processing times. The text emphasizes the negative consequences of publishing in predatory journals and the need to address the factors that allow them to thrive. [Extracted from the article]

Emerging social work academics and researchers are warned about not falling victim to predatory publishers and journals; however, predatory conferences are increasingly common and present a real threat to research integrity. Anyone, regardless of age or experience, can fall victim to predatory or "fake conferences." Their duplicitous and flattering e-mail communications promise high exposure with attractive destinations that sound appealing, especially in the world of high publication pressure. In many cases, these conferences exist but have questionable quality. Social workers would benefit from increased awareness and scrutiny of potential conference meetings that lack peer review, basic organization, and scientific rigor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall purposes of this study are to identify actions taken to counter predatory publishing practices as well as to propose an ICT-based model to detect such practices. The need to raise quantitative performance metrics to support career goals has created immense pressure on researchers to publish in the literature as frequently as possible. This “publish or perish” syndrome appears to be fueling a rise in scholarly journals and conferences that provide quicker and easier routes to publication. However, such avenues sometimes involve questionable academic practices with important ethical ramifications. One notable example is the proliferation of predatory publishing, including predatory journals and fake conferences. The widening impact of such activities is beginning to prompt academic societies, publishers, and institutions to take measures. This paper discusses the issues on predatory publishing practices, and some of the actions taken by various stakeholders to address these practices. In order to build a transparent and sustainable scholarly publishing ecosystem, this study highlights multidimensional and specific solutions, including reforms to research ethics codes, research management rules, and legal protection from exploitative practices. This paper proposes an ICTbased cooperative model for monitoring of predatory publishers as a potential solution to create a sustainable and transparent infrastructure for a scholarly publication system guarding against misconduct in publishing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on creating wider awareness and promoting good research publication ethics. Topics include researchers in India working under greatly varying conditions of infrastructure, funding, depth of research activity and competence; and Academies and the Government of India ensuring enough funds for maintaining high-quality editing and publishing.

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]

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

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]

The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated. It is important, however, to resist the urge to simply join in this crusade without pausing to examine the assumptions upon which such concerns are based. It is often assumed that established journals are almost sacrosanct, and that their quality, secured by peer review, is established. It is also routinely presumed that such journals are immune to the lure of easy money in return for publication. Rather than looking at the deficits that may be apparent in the practices and products of predatory publishers, this commentary invites you to explore the weaknesses that have been exposed in traditional academic journals but are seldom discussed in the context of predatory publishing. The inherent message for health and medical services staff, researchers, academics, and students is, as always, to critically evaluate all sources of information, whatever their provenance. [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]

Predatory publishers deliver neither the editorial oversight, nor the peer review of legitimate publishers, and benefit from those whose positions require academic publications. These publishers also provide a home for conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters, as their lack of scrutiny offers fraudulent academic research articles a veneer of scholarly credibility. While most predatory journals were designed to dupe researchers, the fraudulent articles they often publish are designed to be found by members of the public, and their accessibility ensures that unlike legitimate research, they are likely to be employed as evidence by those seeking evidence. While studies have examined the common features of predatory journals, their emails, and their websites, this essay situates fraudulent academic articles in posttruth discourse, offers a taxonomy of illegitimate research articles, and highlights their common rhetorical features, in the hopes that the concepts discovered here can further contribute to pedagogy and public understanding. [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 letter discusses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting predatory journals in the medical and scientific literature. The authors argue that just as physicians use objective diagnostic criteria to accurately diagnose diseases, it is important to have criteria to identify publishing malpractice. They highlight the limitations of AI-based tools, using an example where a journal was initially classified as "suspected predatory" but later changed to "normal." The authors caution against over-reliance on AI and emphasize the need for complete accuracy in detection tools. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the word publication essentially means "the act of making public" such information or content which hitherto has remained private to a group of people or an individual. Topics include the creator of the content of the published material as well as to all potential recipients of such published information, and the duty of the publishers to ensure that all published material is valid and true to the best of their judgment.

The article presents the discussion on survey to all EMWA members on behalf of the Medical Communications Special Interest Group (MedComms SIG) helping in better understanding the issues presented by predatory publishing practices. Topics include predatory journals being a major concern for medical writers with a significant impact on all healthcare stakeholders; and predatory journals and conferences permeating medical communications and public policy.

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]

This article discusses the importance of mentoring in scientific publishing, specifically in the field of toxicology. The editorial team of the journal Toxicological Sciences (ToxSci) emphasizes the need to nurture the respect for the journal in the next generation of authors. Mentoring can help address challenges in publishing, such as predatory journals and biases, and can guide trainees in understanding the intricacies of rigor and reproducibility in their manuscripts. The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to fostering mentor-mentee relationships and offers various mentoring programs and events. To engage trainees in publishing, ToxSci has developed an interactive "I Spy ToxSci: Trainee Scavenger Hunt" at their annual meeting. The goal is to make ToxSci relevant and valuable to both trainees and seasoned authors. [Extracted from the article]

Case reports and interesting images are valuable contributions to the radiology literature as they provide unique insights into uncommon conditions and rare presentations. Additionally, they serve as a rapidly expanding live image atlas and, therefore, can help radiologists to improve their diagnostics skills. However, due to high rejection rates and an increasing number of predatory publishers, publishing radiology case reports remains a daunting task for junior researchers. To overcome these challenges and ensure timely dissemination of their research findings, authors should consider several factors when selecting a target journal for case report publications. In this primer, we have summarized key considerations in journal selection and highlighted reputable journals that welcome radiology case reports. • Case reports (CR) and interesting images (IM) offer hands-on experience with publication process for junior researchers. • CR and IM function as a dynamic image atlas, aiding radiologists in the diagnosis of rare or challenging diseases. • Authors should consider the credibility, visibility, and readership of the journal to avoid predatory publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an analysis of the work of Domingo Docampo, a mathematician at the University of Vigo with an interest in university ranking systems. Topics discussed include data which shows that institutions such as the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Princeton produced the greatest number of highly cited math papers between 2008 and 2010, patterns found by Docampo that suggested citation cartels were at work, and citation manipulation in larger disciplines.

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall's list by the scientific community–A bibliometric big data study" published in PLoS ONE. The correction addresses errors in the Funding section and provides the correct funding statement. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Austrian Science Fund FWF, the Medical University Graz, the Open Access Publication Fund of Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the German Research Foundation. The correction notice does not provide any additional information about the content or findings of the original article. [Extracted from the article]