Search

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

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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]

The article discusses the issue of predatory journals, specifically focusing on the case study of the OMICS Publishing Group. The study conducted by Chérifa Boukacem aimed to understand the motivations of researchers who submitted manuscripts to predatory journals. The researchers found that some respondents were being harassed for more money by OMICS representatives, and some were even threatened physically. Predatory publishers prioritize self-interest and profit over research integrity, often taking fees without performing advertised services such as peer review. The article emphasizes the harm caused by predatory journals and the need to address this issue. It highlights that predatory publishing is a global issue that affects scientists in both low- and high-income countries, and that addressing this issue requires better training for researchers, increased funding for open access publication, and the adoption of principles that improve the evaluation of scientists. Governments also need to be vigilant in preventing predatory publishing companies from operating in their countries. [Extracted from the article]

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

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

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

While there has been recent media attention to the issue of "fake news," misinformation and disinformation has been a lasting part of human history. This Janet Doe Lecture presents the history of fake news, how it is spread and accepted, its impact on medical and health information, and medical librarian roles in limiting its spread and promoting correct health information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research compares the performance measures reported by two bibliographic databases relevant to a set of authors who have published in predatory journals. The reliability of decision-making based on the information provided by uncontrolled bibliographic databases is examined to support rational decisions. A sample of authors who published in predatory journals was selected in order to compare each author's research performance as reported by Google Scholar (GS) and Scopus. The number of articles, citations, and h-indices were used for the comparison. Correlation analysis, polynomial regression, k-means clustering, significant tests, and simple descriptive statistics were employed to examine the data. The number of articles, citations, and h-indices correlated strongly between the two databases. However, these three measures were all significantly higher in GS than they were in Scopus. The articles published in predatory journals received less attention as compared to that received by the articles published in genuine journals. Two polynomial models of two degrees were implemented to interpolate the number of citations based on the number of articles in GS and Scopus separately. The number of articles and citations were more reliable measures in Scopus than in GS. However, the h-index was more reliable in GS. Overall, Scopus displayed higher stability than did GS. The combined behavior of the three performance measures showed some resemblance in the two databases. A study that especially focuses on the research performance of authors who published in predatory journals has not yet been compared for the different implications given for their data in uncontrolled and controlled bibliographic databases. Therefore, the findings of the current research let us evaluate such authors rationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a leading ethics-promoting organization associated with academic publishing. COPE continuously fortifies its ethics guidelines, also serving as a warning portal of "predatory" publishing behavior. A 2019 COPE discussion document on "predatory publishing" lists 16 warning signs of predatory publishers/journals. Grounded in legitimacy theory, this study examines, by adopting COPE's 16 warning signs of "predatory publishing" as criteria, the case of a current COPE member publisher, Academic and Business Research Institute (AABRI). Our assessment reveals that, according to COPE's own stated criteria, AABRI would be considered as "predatory." The objective of this case study was to appreciate whether COPE's 16 warning signs may be insufficiently sensitive to detect a predatory journal or publisher, or whether those criteria require an adjustment if the journal/publisher is academically legitimate but is found to be otherwise. If such criteria were to be used widely by academics (and others) to characterize journals or publishers, but result in a surprising or undesired negative classification ("predatory"), then this may have widespread ramifications not only for global academia but also for scholarship and society at large. An incorrect classification could also negatively impact the COPE "brand" of ethical and scholarly legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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]

Universities and their academics are faced with increasing pressure to contribute to knowledge. These pressures produce conditions for shortcuts and, worse, the production of unreliable research that has little value. This is the world of the fake, where universities are corrupted and their integrity undermined. We argue that the scholarly book that reflects deep thinking and major commitments of time, energy and resource is a counterweight to the temptations offered by short, quick and often shallow outputs processed in predatory journals and often rewarded by national and university publication incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Flattering emails are crucial in tempting authors to submit papers to predatory journals. Although there is ample literature regarding the questionable practices of predatory journals, the nature and detection of spam emails need more attention. Current research provides insight into fallacious calls for papers from potential predatory journals and develops a toolkit in this regard. Methods: In this study, we analyzed three datasets of calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals using a text mining approach and R programming language. Results: Overall, most potential predatory journals use similar language and templates in their calls for papers. Importantly, these journals praise themselves in glorious terms involving positive words that may be rarely seen in emails from legitimate journals. Based on these findings, we developed a lexicon for detecting unsolicited calls for papers from potential predatory journals. Conclusion: We conclude that calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals are different, and it can help to distinguish them. By providing an educational plan and easily usable tools, we can deal with predatory journals better than previously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past two decades have witnessed growing call and actions for free and immediate access to published scholarship online without technological, monetary or legal barriers from around the world. The phenomenon described as open access (OA) has been strengthened by the possibilities of digital network technologies represented in the ubiquitous Internet. While the goal of the OA movement remains good, it appears the epistemic disbalance in global knowledge creation and access has not abated. However, the promise of OA, the motivation on which it stands, its consequence and current state are reviewed in this paper with particular focus on the contribution of Africa to the global OA movement. It has been reported that the emergence of OA on the continent is albeit slow but with a mixed fortune of both progress and challenges. Notwithstanding, open access is seen as a development imperative for Africa that offers tremendous opportunities to the continent to actively contribute to global knowledge. It was reported that a number of universities and research institutions in Africa have adopted open access policies that require their researchers to publish their work in open access journals or repositories. The paper presented a number of open access initiatives and platforms that are actively being deployed to achieve OA mandate in the continent and concluded with recommendations. [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]

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

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

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 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) ranks journals into four quartiles (Q1–Q4). SJR serves as a safelist for journal selection, when trying to avoid predatory journals, as journals that have been indexed by SJR are seen as having stringent publishing standards. An AI-based tool, the Academic Journal Predatory Checking System (AJPC), claims to be able to differentiate suspected predatory journals from normal journals. In this study, we asked (25 March 2023) AJPC to classify the top 2500 journals (based on SJR ranking). We found that 65.64% of these journals were classified as "suspected predatory", 33.28% were classified as "normal", while 1.08% of the journals could not be classified. A follow-up run (30 March 2023) returned different results (89.20%, 10.16% and 0.64%). This set of results is worrying, not only because of the number of SJR journals that are thought to be "predatory", but also because of the difference in results when using the same tool a matter of days apart. We extended our analysis and looked at seven stand-alone publishers (Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, OMICS, Springer Nature (incl. Nature Portfolio), Taylor & Francis and Wiley). In total, we asked AJPC to classify 17,721 journals. The results confirm that we should be concerned about the classifications provided by AJPC. For example, 100% (4756) of Elsevier journals were classified as "suspected predatory". Even Springer Nature (which includes the journal that published the AJPC paper) has journals which were classified at "suspected predatory". We thus urge caution against relying on AJPC at present. We also urge the AJPC's authors to provide an explanation as to why a journal is classified in a particular way, as part of their user interface. We are willing to conduct further analyses should AJPC be revised and updated as it could provide an important service to the scholarly community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Predatory publishing has recently emerged as a menace in academia. University professors and researchers often exploit this practice for their economic gains and institutional prestige. The present study investigates such existing predatory publishing practices in Pakistani public sector universities drawing on the notion of symbolic violence. For this purpose, we analyzed 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities over the period 2017–2021. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 postgraduate students to gather their perspectives on publishing practices. The study shows that 69% of the sample papers were published in predatory journals, as identified in Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's (HEC) online journal recognition system (HJRS). Postgraduate students' insights inform the study that the students misrecognize these malpractices in academia as a problem what is referred to as "symbolic violence." Consequently, they engage in the process to increase their publications. Such publications enable both the university professors and the students to achieve the desired benefit, such as promotions, tenure, and academic degrees. We recommend that this practice must be altered at the policy level since it not only violates the HEC's standards for quality research but also damages the researchers' credibility and country's scientific reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document, titled "Predatory journals: How to recognise and keep clear!" discusses the issue of predatory publishing in the medical academic field. Predatory journals are defined as entities that prioritize self-interest over scholarship and engage in false or misleading practices. The document explores the factors that contribute to the growth of predatory practices, such as lack of awareness and pressure to publish. It also provides guidance on how to identify predatory journals and offers resources to help researchers avoid them. The document emphasizes the importance of raising awareness, promoting legitimate open access alternatives, and implementing stringent guidelines to combat predatory publishing. [Extracted from the article]

An interview with Joseph Parkin, a student in the Chemistry department at the University of Liverpool is presented. He discusses his involvement with the Society of Chemical Industry (SCI) and the benefits of networking, skill development, and opportunities for undergraduates and new graduates within the organization. Topics include the commercial application of his research, focusing on high throughput virtual screening techniques for detecting photocatalysts in the pharmaceutical sector.

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]

Predatory journals, first recognized in the early 2000s, are fraudulent publications characterized by aggressive marketing solicitations and deviation from best publishing practices. These journals claim to be legitimate scholarly publications, and accept articles with no or poor peer review processes or quality checks, with rapid publication on payment by authors. They are a global threat as they are dishonest, lack transparency and seek only financial gain. More recently, predatory conferences have emerged and are expanding rapidly. Although they appear to be legitimate scientific conferences, they are also characterized by an overriding profit motive, with no concern for academic values. Predatory journals and conferences are on the rise; dermatology trainees, readers and those new to publishing and conferences are vulnerable to predatory exploitation. The consequences of falling victim to such predation include damage to the external reputation of the authors and their institution, and heightened concerns about the legitimacy of the research. This educational review defines predatory journals and conferences, and summarizes their distinguishing features such as a poor or no peer review process, rapid acceptance, flattering language and lack of meeting. It highlights the consequences of publishing in a predatory journal or attending a predatory conference, and outlines several tools available that dermatology researchers can use to recognize and reduce the likelihood of falling prey to a predatory journal or conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beall's list is widely used to identify potentially predatory journals. With this study, we aim to investigate the impact of Beall's list on the perception of listed journals as well as on the publication and citation behavior of the scientific community. We performed comprehensive bibliometric analyses of data extracted from the ISSN database, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Crossref, Scopus and Web of Science. Citation analysis was performed by data extracted from the Crossref Cited-by database. At the time of analysis, Beall's list consisted of 1,289 standalone journals and 1,162 publishers, which corresponds to 21,735 individual journals. Of these, 3,206 (38.8%) were located in the United States, 2,484 in India (30.0%), and 585 in United Kingdom (7.1%). The majority of journals were listed in the ISSN database (n = 8,266), Crossref (n = 5,155), PubMed (n = 1,139), Scopus (n = 570), DOAJ (n = 224), PMC (n = 135) or Web of Science (n = 50). The number of articles published by journals on Beall's list as well as on the DOAJ continuously increased from 2011 to 2017. In 2018, the number of articles published by journals on Beall's list decreased. Journals on Beall's list were more often cited when listed in Web of Science (CI 95% 5.5 to 21.5; OR = 10.7) and PMC (CI 95% 6.3 to 14.1; OR = 9.4). It seems that the importance of Beall's list for the scientific community is overestimated. In contrast, journals are more likely to be selected for publication or citation when indexed by commonly used and renowned databases. Thus, the providers of these databases must be aware of their impact and verify that good publication practice standards are being applied by the journals listed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

The advancement of science requires the publication of research results so other scientists may examine, confirm, and build upon them, and the publishing ecosystem that mediates this process has undergone dramatic change over recent decades. This article takes a broad view of the biomedical research publishing system from its origins in the 17th century to the present day. It begins with a story from the author's lab that illustrates a scientist's complex interactions with the publishing system and then reviews the history, growth, and evolution of scientific publishing, including several recent disruptive developments: the digital transformation, the open access (OA) movement, the creation of "predatory journals," and the emergence of preprint archives. Each has influenced scientific peer review and editorial decision-making, two processes critical to the conduct of medical and scientific research and culture. After briefly discussing concerns about the impact of politics on editorial decision-making, the article closes with thoughts on the future evolution of this publishing ecosystem, which will impact the biomedical research ecosystem that depends upon it. Beyond accelerated speed and improved access to publications, the community should prioritize research aimed at further enhancing the quality and impact of published research, the core goal of the scientific enterprise. [End Page 358] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02–1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P <.001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010–2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the crucial role of General Practitioners (GPs) in contributing to research evidence and clinical knowledge for the improvement of Australians health. Topics discussed include the planning, drafting, and submission stages of writing a research manuscript, addressing aspects such as authorship, and the importance of clearly articulating the purpose of the manuscript.

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.)

An editorial is presented on the evolution and challenges of Open Access publishing, and it discusses the establishment of coalition S and its Plan S initiative to transform research accessibility. It reports that major European funding agencies and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the perspectives of journals, funders, and universities on the benefits and challenges of this publishing model.

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

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

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]

Since the emergence of the internet and open science in the 1990s, "predatory journals," or "predatory publishing," have attracted the increasing attention of scholars. Research on the topic has grown at a rapid rate, particularly in the last five years. This article serves as the first bibliometric review on the topic of "predators in the scientific publication" and draws on 869 published articles from the Scopus database between 2012 and 30 March 2022. These papers were produced by a total of 1586 authors, coming from 101 countries, representing 1538 organizations, and published in 501 journals. Research disciplines mostly covered the fields of medicine, social sciences, and nursing. This study also reveals the complexity of issues and research trends around the topic of predatory scientific publications, including the review process for scientific journals, publication fees and article processing charges, open science and open-access publications, and the like and related topics such as the impact on scholars in developing countries and academic ethics. Finally, this article provides several recommendations, namely, the need for more efficient criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific journals, more public communication on the importance of ethics in research and publication, and a greater awareness among scholars and organizations of the implications of the "predator" issue in scientific publishing. [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]