Publish and perish

Abstract

Academic institutions provide an environment for learning, innovation, and generation of knowledge. Dissemination of scholarly work emanating from such institutions, from similar science-oriented bodies, and from people is a means for scholarly communication and provides the framework for scientific progress. Publishing manuscripts is ingrained in the academic culture and is the foundation for the evaluation and assessment of scientific achievements. For centuries, publishers have provided a platform for the distribution of scholarly articles, mainly through a subscription-based model or as a member benefit in collaboration with an association or organization. For example, members of the American Dental Association (ADA) receive The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) as a member benefit. JADA was published by the ADA until 2015 when Elsevier became the publisher.1Springer M.D. JADA and Elsevier: a new relationship for a new media world.JADA. 2015; 146: 1-2Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Access to articles published in subscription-based journals often is restricted to subscribers for a set period—usually up to 12 months. Such a restriction can be lifted arbitrarily by the publisher for specific articles or in cases in which a nongovernmental organization that insists on immediate open access (for example, Wellcome Trust) supports a study. The subscription-based financial model has been challenged with the emergence of open-access journals (OAJ) that assess an article-processing charge or a publication fee that typically is paid by the author. This model enables immediate “open” or free access to articles by everyone. There also are hybrid models in which articles are published behind a pay wall at no charge to the author but the articles can be made open access if the author pays a surcharge.Scientific progress builds on existing scholarship, but when such scholarship has been paid for rather than earned, better vigilance and scrutiny are necessary. Scientific progress builds on existing scholarship, but when such scholarship has been paid for rather than earned, better vigilance and scrutiny are necessary. Although a search in WorldCat—a database of library catalogs—returned a list of more than 6,000 dental journals that were published in 2014 (the year of the latest report available),2Journals in the 2014 release of JCR. Thomson Reuters 2013 citation data. Available at: http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/imgblast/JCRFullCovlist-2014.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2016.Google Scholar only 87 of these journals had been assigned a journal impact factor, a journal impact factor percentile, and an Eigenfactor score (Box 13Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/4346-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016Google Scholar, 4Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor percentile. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/9586-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 5Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Eigenfactor score. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g6/7791-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar). These metrics commonly are used to assess the scientific impact of a journal and to make comparisons between journals within a specific discipline. Although some have challenged their validity, these metrics provide some assurance regarding the scientific rigor of a journal.Box 1Tabled 1Definitions of metrics commonly used to assess the scientific impact of a journal and to make comparisons among journals within a specific discipline.⁃ Journal Impact Factor: “Average number of times articles from a journal published in the past two years have been cited in the [Journal Citation Reports] year. For example, a 2011 Journal Impact Factor of 4.25 means that, on average, an article published in the journal in 2009 or 2010 received 4.25 citations in 2011.”∗Source: Thomson Reuters.3⁃ Journal Impact Factor Percentile: “The Journal Impact Factor Percentile transforms the rank in category by Journal Impact Factor into a percentile value, allowing more meaningful cross-category comparison.”†Source: Thomson Reuters.4⁃ Eigenfactor Score: “The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the [Journal Citation Reports] year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation.”‡Source: Thomson Reuters.5∗ Source: Thomson Reuters.3Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/4346-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016Google Scholar† Source: Thomson Reuters.4Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor percentile. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/9586-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar‡ Source: Thomson Reuters.5Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Eigenfactor score. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g6/7791-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar Open table in a new tab Tabled 1Definitions of metrics commonly used to assess the scientific impact of a journal and to make comparisons among journals within a specific discipline.⁃ Journal Impact Factor: “Average number of times articles from a journal published in the past two years have been cited in the [Journal Citation Reports] year. For example, a 2011 Journal Impact Factor of 4.25 means that, on average, an article published in the journal in 2009 or 2010 received 4.25 citations in 2011.”∗Source: Thomson Reuters.3⁃ Journal Impact Factor Percentile: “The Journal Impact Factor Percentile transforms the rank in category by Journal Impact Factor into a percentile value, allowing more meaningful cross-category comparison.”†Source: Thomson Reuters.4⁃ Eigenfactor Score: “The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the [Journal Citation Reports] year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation.”‡Source: Thomson Reuters.5∗ Source: Thomson Reuters.3Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/4346-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016Google Scholar† Source: Thomson Reuters.4Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Journal impact factor percentile. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/9586-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar‡ Source: Thomson Reuters.5Thomson Reuters. InCites Journal Citation Reports Help. Eigenfactor score. Available at: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g6/7791-TRS.html. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar Open table in a new tab Journalist John Bohannon, writing for Science,6Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review?.Science. 2013; 342: 60-65Crossref PubMed Scopus (740) Google Scholar perpetrated a creative sting to expose deceitful publishing practices. Bohannon created a severely and obviously flawed research manuscript with fictitious authors’ names and university affiliations, and he submitted it to 304 OAJs. The outcome of his undercover exercise painted a chilling picture of the publishing practices of some OAJs: 157 journals accepted the article, 98 rejected the article, and the remaining 49 journals had not responded to him by the time he published his exposé. Even more disconcerting was the fact that of the 106 journals that supposedly performed a scientific review of his article, 70% accepted the manuscript with ostensibly no suggested changes to the bogus content. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, applies the term “predatory” to journals and publishers that he deems to be engaged in deceitful, unprofessional behavior for the purpose of generating profit. Beall has been at the forefront of exposing such practices and has created and continually updates 4 lists of journals, publishers, and companies that engage in objectionable publishing and scientific conduct: predatory and questionable publishers, predatory and questionable stand-alone journals, “hijacked” journals (journals pretending to be other journals), and fake metrics companies (companies that are creating and espousing phony and sham metrics, such as fake impact factors).7Scholarly Open Access. About the author: Jeffrey Beall. Available at: https://scholarlyoa.com/about/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 8Scholarly Open Access. Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2016. Available at: https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 9Scholarly Open Access. List of standalone journals: potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals. Available at: https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 10Scholarly Open Access. Hijacked journals. Available at: https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 11Scholarly Open Access. Misleading metrics. Available at: https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar When should you suspect that you are dealing with a “predatory” journal or publisher? Boxes 2 and 312Directory of Open Access Journals. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Available at: https://doaj.org/bestpractice. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 13Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The international community of open access publishers. Available at: http://oaspa.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar, 14Bohannon J. How to hijack a journal.Science. 2015; 350: 903-905Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar provide several clues.Box 2Tabled 1Clues suggesting a “predatory” journal.⁃ Spam solicitations for articles, to be a guest editor, or to be on the editorial board (check Internet Protocol [IP] addresses within the headers of an e-mail to ascertain its origin)⁃ Poor grammar and misspellings in a solicitation letter and on the journal’s website⁃ Incorrect or fake editorial office addresses⁃ Use of a fake impact factor to promote the journal⁃ Fake editorial board members⁃ Editorial board members you do not recognize although the journal is purportedly in your area of expertise⁃ Indeterminate geographical location of a journal, although a geographical name, such as “American” or European,” is used in the title of the journal⁃ A promise for a quick turnaround from the time of submission to publication (sometimes 24 hours)⁃ No mention of or a difficult-to-ascertain article-processing charge⁃ A plagiarized website (that is, the website is almost identical to a legitimate journal’s website)⁃ Lack of transparency about ownership Open table in a new tab Box 3Tabled 1What you can expect from a “predatory” publisher.⁃ Lack of adherence to acceptable publishing standards (examples of recognized publishing standards are promulgated by Directory of Open Access Journals and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association∗Sources: Directory of Open Access Journals12 and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.13)⁃ A corrupt and poor-quality peer review process⁃ Attempts to charge fees for fake or poor-quality editorial services⁃ Lack of scrutiny regarding the scientific quality of the journal’s content⁃ Inflated or fake journal impact scores⁃ Vigorous attempts to collect a fee even if you decide to withdraw your accepted article⁃ A “hijacked” journal†Source: Bohannon.14∗ Sources: Directory of Open Access Journals12Directory of Open Access Journals. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Available at: https://doaj.org/bestpractice. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.13Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The international community of open access publishers. Available at: http://oaspa.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar† Source: Bohannon.14Bohannon J. How to hijack a journal.Science. 2015; 350: 903-905Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Open table in a new tab Tabled 1Clues suggesting a “predatory” journal.⁃ Spam solicitations for articles, to be a guest editor, or to be on the editorial board (check Internet Protocol [IP] addresses within the headers of an e-mail to ascertain its origin)⁃ Poor grammar and misspellings in a solicitation letter and on the journal’s website⁃ Incorrect or fake editorial office addresses⁃ Use of a fake impact factor to promote the journal⁃ Fake editorial board members⁃ Editorial board members you do not recognize although the journal is purportedly in your area of expertise⁃ Indeterminate geographical location of a journal, although a geographical name, such as “American” or European,” is used in the title of the journal⁃ A promise for a quick turnaround from the time of submission to publication (sometimes 24 hours)⁃ No mention of or a difficult-to-ascertain article-processing charge⁃ A plagiarized website (that is, the website is almost identical to a legitimate journal’s website)⁃ Lack of transparency about ownership Open table in a new tab Tabled 1What you can expect from a “predatory” publisher.⁃ Lack of adherence to acceptable publishing standards (examples of recognized publishing standards are promulgated by Directory of Open Access Journals and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association∗Sources: Directory of Open Access Journals12 and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.13)⁃ A corrupt and poor-quality peer review process⁃ Attempts to charge fees for fake or poor-quality editorial services⁃ Lack of scrutiny regarding the scientific quality of the journal’s content⁃ Inflated or fake journal impact scores⁃ Vigorous attempts to collect a fee even if you decide to withdraw your accepted article⁃ A “hijacked” journal†Source: Bohannon.14∗ Sources: Directory of Open Access Journals12Directory of Open Access Journals. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Available at: https://doaj.org/bestpractice. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.13Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The international community of open access publishers. Available at: http://oaspa.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar† Source: Bohannon.14Bohannon J. How to hijack a journal.Science. 2015; 350: 903-905Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Open table in a new tab A credible source for OAJs is the online Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).15Directory of Open Access Journals. Available at: https://doaj.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar This website lists more than 11,400 journals that have been vetted and in excess of 2.2 million articles that can be accessed through its website. Being included in DOAJ does not ensure absolute legitimacy, but DOAJ is one of the best resources available today. Publishing OAJs is a fast-emerging business. It was estimated that more than 53,000 open-access articles were published in 2010, a number that increased to more than 420,000 in 2014.16Shen C. Björk B.-C. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 230Crossref PubMed Scopus (449) Google Scholar In contrast with print journals, Web-based OAJs have no page limitations and obviously will increase their revenues with the publication of more articles, which is, of course, the driving force for most “predatory” publishers. To generate business, these journals constantly inundate authors who have been published and whose names are known with unsolicited invitations to submit manuscripts and to join editorial boards or even become an editor. In addition, young faculty members are bombarded with such invitations and often fall for the promise of fast—and likely—publication, because they may feel pressure to publish to advance their careers. Nonetheless, there are many highly respected OAJs, such as the suite of 7 journals published by the nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization called the Public Library of Science, of which PLOS ONE was the first multidisciplinary OAJ.17PLOS. Available at: https://www.plos.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar Several publishers of established and highly regarded dental journals also have begun publishing OAJs that involve rigorous peer review and other editorial services. For example, Sage Journals introduced the first issue of JDR Clinical and Translational Research18Sage Journals. JDR Clinical and Translational Research. Available at: http://jct.sagepub.com. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar to complement the Journal of Dental Research in April, and Wiley-Blackwell launched Clinical and Experimental Dental Research19Wiley Online Library. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2057-4347. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar in October 2015. Unfortunately, the existence of predatory practice involving OAJs casts a dark shadow over the acceptability of this fast-growing breed of journals. In addition to DOAJ, there are other resources that may assist bourgeoning, as well as more experienced, writers. One example is a website launched in 2015 called “Think. Check. Submit.” that provides guidance on how to assess the trustworthiness of a journal.20Think. Check. Submit. Available at: http://thinkchecksubmit.org/. Accessed April 17, 2016.Google Scholar As a professor at a research-intensive university, I often am asked to write letters of support for promotion and tenure for people at my own and other institutions. It is distressing to see curricula vitae that have been padded with articles published in predatory journals and memberships on the editorial boards of such journals. Instead of adding to a person’s other works, it detracts from them and decreases the trust in such a person’s abilities and judgment. It also generates distrust in the institutions that allow for such practices to take place. Scientific progress builds on existing scholarship, but when such scholarship has been paid for rather than earned, better vigilance and scrutiny are necessary. Both editors and readers must hone their inquiry abilities and develop a higher degree of skepticism. The fact that an article has been published does not automatically imply that it is scientifically sound. The dissemination and perpetuation of misinformation are 2 of the greatest threats to our science-based profession and our patients. Dr. Glick is a professor and the William M. Feagans Chair, School of Dental Medicine, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. He also is the editor of The Journal of the American Dental Association. ”Predatory” publishing and open access in dentistryThe Journal of the American Dental AssociationVol. 147Issue 8PreviewWe would like to applaud Dr. Michael Glick’s June editorial, “Publish and Perish” (JADA. 2016;147[6]:385-387). “Predatory” publishing is now a serious problem jeopardizing both the development of scientific research and the future careers of researchers. In the case of dentistry and other health-related disciplines, such practices are even more deleterious and unethical because they pollute the available evidence pool, potentially resulting in harm to patients and the public as a whole.1,2 However, most medical authors and other stakeholders still do not know about predatory publishing,3 let alone the differences between legitimate and unscholarly open access (OA) journals; therefore, the first step in tackling predatory publishing is to raise awareness of the problem. Full-Text PDF