In addition to ‘the evolution of predatory Journals - New strategies and threats. A letter to the editor’

Predator-in-Chief: Wolves in Editors’ Clothing

Background:Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.Aim:To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.Design:Quantitative descriptive case study.Participants and research context:Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.Ethical considerations:This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.Results:Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.Discussion:Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.Conclusion:While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.

More Trends in Predatory Publishing Practices

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.FindingsThe number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.Practical implicationsIt is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.Originality/valueThis work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

FTC Sues OMICS: Claims Open Access Academic Publisher Scams Academics

BackgroundThe Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.MethodsOn July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.ResultsNinety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000).ConclusionsWe identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.

An increasing number of scholarly journals and scientific papers are available in open access on the journal’s websites (gold open access) and in repositories (green open access). Although both ways of achieving open access provide free access to end users, publishing costs still exist and are collected from a variety of sources, e.g. through article processing charges (APC) or crowdfunding (Spezi, Fry, Creaser, Probets and White, 2013). The idea of the open access model was to make high quality journals available to the widest possible public (BOAI, 2002) and the model today has many benefits for the scientific communication. Nevertheless, a deviation has developed recently. The deviation – the emergence of so-called predatory journals – threatens quality and reliability of scientific communication. Such journals attract authors with low APC fees, fast publication, and false indexation data (Beal, 2015; Jalalian, Mahboobi, 2014). Predatory journals and publishers promise quick peer-review, they often have fake editorials listed on their websites, send emails inviting authors to publish papers or offering them to be editors of their journals (Bowman, 2014). Those journals are in open access, they use article processing charges model but do not control the quality (i.e. peer review process is insufficient or, in most cases, non-existent). As the information published in such journals is not verified, there is a possibility that it is wrong and further research should not be based on it. Although there is a lot of information in the literature about the common features of predatory journals and publishers, they can be defined as “the entities which prioritize self-interest at the expense of financial gain and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publishing practices, lack of transparency, and/or persistent and random requests” (Grudniewicz et al., 2019, p. 211).The number of predatory journals has grown, and this has become a major problem for scientific communication and the development of science. Various attempts have been made to characterize and identify predatory journals and help researchers and other participants of scholarly communication to distinguish them from reliable journals. One such attempt was to separate the two with lists (Dadkhah, Borchardt, 2016; Laine, Winker, 2017; Shen, Björk, 2015; Strinzel, et al, 2019). The best-known blacklist of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” is the one by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian who coined the term “predatory” journal in 2015 (Beall’s list). The aim of our study was to investigate whether Croatian scientists published in predatory journals and in how many of them. The sample consisted of open access (OA) papers published in 2016 and 2020 as listed by the Croatian Scientific Bibliography (CROSBI). First we separated those published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and DOAJ databases. The remainder was checked against three “blacklists”: the DOAJ list of journals that claim they are indexed in DOAJ but are not (DOAJ, 2022), the archived version of Beall’s list (Beall, 2017), and Kscien’s list of standalone predatory journals and publishers (Kscien, 2015).

ObjectivesTo describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour.DesignLinkage of random samples of...

Scholarly publishing scams and predatory journals are emerging threats to academic integrity. During the last few years, the number of bogus journals has dramatically increased, defraud authors by promising fast review and prompt publishing. The current research investigates the contribution of Iranian researchers in predatory open-access journals in 2014. In this research, a total of 21,817 articles published by 265 journals from Beall’s list of predatory standalone journals were investigated. Although Beall’s weblog was taken offline on January 15, 2017, data was collected between January and March 2016 when his weblog was accessible. Results of the study revealed that Iranian researchers have contributed to 1449 papers from 265 journals, ranked this country as having the second largest contributor after India. Surprisingly, institutions with the highest share of publication in predatory journals are among the most reputable and well-known universities of the country. Un-vetted papers published in predatory journals can hurt individuals’ reputation and be a base for future low-quality research in Iran and other world countries. To avoid being victimized by questionable journals, researchers should be more familiar with scholarly publishing literacy skills to recognize and avoid publishing scams.

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.

ObjectiveThe purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.MethodsA twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents’ ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.ResultsA total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term “predatory OA journal.” Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391).ConclusionsSurvey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.

Predatory open access (OA) journals can be defined as non-indexed journals that exploit the gold OA model for profit, often spamming academics with questionable e-mails promising rapid OA publication for a fee. In aquaculture – a rapidly growing and highly scrutinized field – the issue of such journals remains undocumented. We employed a quantitative approach to determine whether attributes of scientific quality and rigor differed between OA aquaculture journals not indexed in reputable databases and well-established, indexed journals. Using a Google search, we identified several non-indexed OA journals, gathered data on attributes of these journals and articles therein, and compared these data to well-established aquaculture journals indexed in quality-controlled bibliometric databases. We then used these data to determine if non-indexed journals were likely predatory OA journals and if they pose a potential threat to aquaculture research. On average, non-indexed OA journals published significantly fewer papers per year, had cheaper fees, and were more recently established than indexed journals. Articles in non-indexed journals were, on average, shorter, had fewer authors and references, and spent significantly less time in peer review than their indexed counterparts; the proportion of articles employing rigorous statistical analyses was also lower for non-indexed journals. Additionally, articles in non-indexed journals were more likely to be published by scientists from developing nations. Worryingly, non-indexed journals were more likely to be found using a Google search, and their articles superficially resembled those in indexed journals. These results suggest that the non-indexed aquaculture journals identified herein are likely predatory OA journals and pose a threat to aquaculture research and the public education and perception of aquaculture. There are several points of reference from this study that, in combination, may help scientists and the public more easily identify these possibly predatory journals typically were established after 2010, publishing <20 papers per year, had fees <$1000, and published articles <80 days after submission. Subsequently checking reputable and quality-controlled databases such as the Directory of Open Access Journals, Web of Science, Scopus, and Thompson Reuters can aid in confirming the legitimacy of non-indexed OA journals and can facilitate avoidance of these aquaculture journals.

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.

SUMMARYOpen access publishing has a dark side, the predatory publishers and journals that exist for revenue rather than scholarly activity. This article helps researchers to: (1) identify some of the commonly used tactics and characteristics of predatory publishing; and (2) avoid falling prey to them. In summary, authors should choose the journal for submission themselves and never respond to unsolicited emails. It is also important to check blacklists such as ‘Stop Predatory Journals’ and whitelists such the Directory of Open Access Journals.LEARNING OBJECTIVESAfter reading this article, readers should be able to do the following: •be aware of the dangers of predatory journals and publishers•use blacklists of predatory journals and publishers’ whitelists of legitimate open access journals•be aware of warning signs that might suggest a predatory journal or publisher.DECLARATION OF INTERESTS.K. is on the editorial board of BJPsych International. He also receives five to ten spam emails a day from predatory journals and publishers.

Predatory journals refer to journals that recruit articles through aggressive marketing and spam emails, promising a quick, but not robust, review and fast open-access (OA) publication, thus compromising scholarly publishing...