Predatory Publishing in Indonesia: Challenges, Causes, and Solutions for Safeguarding Research Integrity

Predator-in-Chief: Wolves in Editors’ Clothing

Rise of the predators: Business is booming in the murky global market of suspect and sham publishers and journals.

Misconduct in science: the Panama Papers and more, much more…

Predatory publishing: what authors need to know.

Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

FTC Sues OMICS: Claims Open Access Academic Publisher Scams Academics

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.

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.

A recent review by Gasparyan et al. (1) entitled, Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication, is timely as it examines the upsurge of illegitimate and wasteful publishing. The article exposes the menace of the uncontrolled expansion of predatory publishing practices and calls for concerted actions of all stakeholders of science communication. Authors all over the world are targeted by greedy start-up open-access publishers, offering their online platforms for limitless archiving of poorly edited and unchecked articles for fees. These publishers notoriously compete with and imitate well-established and globally recognized ones, and aim to archive their journals in PubMed Central and then somehow get indexing status from Scopus and Web of Science. They claim to rely on fast and fair peer review and good service to their authors, but are concerned more with the manuscript processing and online posting costs. Recent proliferation of dodgy journals attracting inexperienced or desperate authors is a response to their exaggerated career advancement and promotion plans, which are grounded on quantity but not quality. The mere existence of illegitimate publishers weakens the whole publishing world, and may destroy it eventually (2). A growing number of open-access journals without legitimate impact indices persistently send soliciting emails, trying to attract by seemingly low publication charges. Generous offers of editorial posts and honorable board memberships often follow without considering editorial experience and specialization of an addressee. A logical way out of the current situation, exemplified in the index article by Gasparyan et al. (1), may include delisting predatory journals from Scopus and Web of Science, the so-called self-cleaning of the databases, and revising indexing criteria of prestigious databases and archiving services. Gasparyan et al. (1) call our attention to the main cause of predatory publishing and dissemination of untrustworthy papers, which is the lack of authors' education. As predatory publishers target inexperienced authors, and primarily those from nonmainstream science countries, they should be offered more educational courses on science writing, editing, and publishing ethics. Some authors apparently lack skills in appraising the quality, citability, indexing, and open-access models of the target journals. The scrutiny of peer review in legitimate publishers should be welcomed by authors instead of a sham or no peer review in predatory publishers. Experienced authors must maintain the highest academic standards and mentor younger colleagues in research, writing, publishing, reviewing, and identifying unethical work (3). The index article touched the issue of fake reviewing practices and vanishing editorial functions in some journals. Essentially, superficial editorial control led to the emergence of 'rational cheating' in peer review, which is yet another form of predatory practice, affecting established and newly launched journals (4). Such practice is aimed to unfairly devalue and reject good submissions and credit the reviewers' own works with lower scientific merits. The lack of reviewing skills and professional credentials is often evidenced by hardly understandable and irrelevant reviewer comments, which may also indicate the lack of the editors' discretion. Authors, reviewers and editors have to pass regular training courses on science writing, editing, journal evaluation, research misconduct, and publishing ethics to survive the tough competition. Fortunately, related courses are now available across the world (5). The problem, however, is that there are also 'predatory' courses arranged by agencies and individuals, who may even lack relevant academic background themselves. All stakeholders must raise awareness and educate authors about predatory publishing and its ethical implications. They must continuously upgrade guidelines for evaluating open-access journals. They should assess not only practices of predatory journals, but also conditions promoting their survival. Many authors from non-Anglophone countries are in dire need of editing services and advice of publication consultants. But all these services and consultancies need to be properly controlled and certified. Unethical agencies and self-nominated 'experts' may provide ghost-writing services and recommend 'friendly' journals as homes for their edited works, violating all norms of ethics. It is, therefore, important to reflect on all forms of predatory publishing and recommend targeted actions by all stakeholders of science communication.

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.

More Trends in Predatory Publishing Practices

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.

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.

Caught in the Trap: The Allure of Deceptive Publishers

Predatory or deceptive publishing is still a persistent issue in scholarly communication. A large number of predatory journals are being published, and it is essential to keep them in check as the potential harm they could do to the scientific discourse is enormous. With the Open Science Framework (OSF) project titled "Decoding Predatory Publishing Practices for Academia (DePA)," the authors try to equip users to identify potential predatory journals and endorse ethical and quality publishing. The project will consist of training materials and a rubric developed to examine the quality of an open-access scientific journal by combining the publisher and individual journal aspects. The project includes a rubric consisting of different aspects regarding publication in scientific journals, quantifying the quality of the publishing practices adopted by these journals. Predatory or deceptive publishing is still a persistent issue in scholarly communication. For instance, deceptive publishers could hold the unpublished manuscript indefinitely, and little can be done if the author has signed a copyright transfer agreement. We can reduce the impact of predatory publishers by aiding the scholar community with simple and easy-to-understand devices that help them analyse the journals and publishers themselves. This could be part of the orientation at a researcher’s, library’s, or mentor’s level.