InTech Research Articles

From Research to Publication: Understanding the Publishing Landscape in Architectural Studies

ABSTRACT Navigating the academic publishing ecosystem is a crucial skill that requires preparation and experience. Publishing for tenure is a common practice in many institutions, yet as with many disciplines, engaging in the academic publishing world is not often taught in graduate architecture school. By accessing and examining the procedures and expectations needed to successfully publish, this article enables tenure seeking faculty to identify and address the challenges and questions facing academic publication. Topics include understanding open access journals, predatory journals, the role of the editorial board, and other important scholarly communication topics.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study.

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

Commentary] To Publish Scientific Journals: For Some, the Big Business of the Century

This brief commentary addresses the escalating issues within the scientific publishing industry. The author highlights the proliferation of predatory journals and the adoption of similar profit-driven models by established publishers. He points out the ethical dilemma posed by Gold Open Access (OA) journals, which charge significant Article Publishing Charges (APC) to authors while not compensating peer reviewers. The commentary underscores the resulting strain on the peer-review process, with a decline in the availability and quality of reviewers. The author observes a shift from the traditional reciprocal peer-review system to one burdened by challenges, including shortened review deadlines, reliance on less experienced reviewers, and instances of manuscripts being unreviewed. He advocates for compensating reviewers if authors are charged for publication, warning that the current system risks the integrity of peer-reviewed research. Finally, the commentary applauds initiatives like the resignation of editorial board members from Elsevier journals to start non-profit journals, urging scientific communities to regain control of scholarly publishing.

Impact of Predatory Journal Publishing on Scholarly Practices among Academic Librarians in Nigeria: A Systematic Review of Literature

The rise of predatory publishing poses a concerning trend among academics, including librarians, in Nigeria. This study explores the essential aspects and consequences of predatory publishing within the realm of Nigerian academic librarians. It delineates the characteristics of predatory publishers and journals, shedding light on their subtle methods of enticing unwitting authors. The discussion navigates the intricate dimensions of predatory publishing and its detrimental impacts on research and scholarship within the librarian community. Emphasizing the devastating effects on the future of research and scholarship, the paper concludes by presenting intervention strategies and urging relevant authorities in Nigeria to take proactive measures in curtailing predatory publishing, particularly among academic librarians. The paper recommends that academic libraries and librarians should lead the awareness campaign, and individual institutions should organize periodic seminars and workshops on the consequences of predatory publishing.

Correction to: Predatory journals

Correction to: Predatory journals

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

BackgroundSelecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. ResultsAlmost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term “predatory journal.” As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. ConclusionPublishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

The game of academic publishing: a review of gamified publication practices in the social sciences

In the last decades, academic publishing in the Social Sciences has experienced a shift toward research management by non-academic stakeholders and performance-based funding systems (PBFSs). The resulting conditions of knowledge production and dissemination are increasingly described with “game” metaphors. This article provides a literature review of research concerning publishing in the Social Sciences and discusses how gamification becomes a key element. Quantifying publication outcomes to assess and financially incentivize research performance results in a highly competitive playing field where access to goods and services is denied to those who play the game poorly. The pressure to publish leads to unethical behavior and predatory publishing which are two side-effects of gamified practices. The reviewed literature also shows unequal starting conditions in terms of gender and language inequalities, as well as the dominance of the Global North. We conclude that the gamification of publication practices in the Social Sciences leads to stressful and dreadful environments.

The future of academic publishing in India: Embracing innovations for quality and global recognition

Academic publishing in India has the potential to significantly impact the nation's progress and global standing. This paper explores the futuristic possibilities and challenges of the Indian academic publishing industry. As technological advancements continue to shape the world, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and automation in publishing promises to revolutionize content development, distribution, and customer insights. However, the focus on quantity over quality and the proliferation of predatory journals remain pressing issues. To secure a prominent position in the global academic arena, Indian academia must prioritize quality research, adopt AI-driven publishing processes, and strengthen collaborations with international publishers and databases.

Can ChatGPT identify predatory biomedical and dental journals? A cross-sectional content analysis

ObjectivesTo assess whether ChatGPT can help to identify predatory biomedical and dental journals, analyze the content of its responses and compare the frequency of positive and negative indicators provided by ChatGPT concerning predatory and legitimate journals. MethodsFour-hundred predatory and legitimate biomedical and dental journals were selected from four sources: Beall's list, unsolicited emails, the Web of Science (WOS) journal list and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). ChatGPT was asked to determine journal legitimacy. Journals were classified into legitimate or predatory. Pearson's Chi-squared test and logistic regression were conducted. Two machine learning algorithms determined the most influential criteria on the correct classification of journals. ResultsThe data were categorized under 10 criteria with the most frequently coded criteria being the transparency of processes and policies. ChatGPT correctly classified predatory and legitimate journals in 92.5 % and 71 % of the sample, respectively. The accuracy of ChatGPT responses was 0.82. ChatGPT also demonstrated a high level of sensitivity (0.93). Additionally, the model exhibited a specificity of 0.71, accurately identifying true negatives. A highly significant association between ChatGPT verdicts and the classification based on known sources was observed (P <0.001). ChatGPT was 30.2 times more likely to correctly classify a predatory journal (95 % confidence interval: 16.9–57.43, p-value: <0.001). ConclusionsChatGPT can accurately distinguish predatory and legitimate journals with a high level of accuracy. While some false positive (29 %) and false negative (7.5 %) results were observed, it may be reasonable to harness ChatGPT to assist with the identification of predatory journals. Clinical significance statementChatGPT may effectively distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals, with accuracy rates of 92.5 % and 71 %, respectively. The potential utility of large-scale language models in exposing predatory publications is worthy of further consideration.

Country names in journal titles: shaping researchers’ perception of journals quality

Numerous academic journals incorporate geographic names, including countries and regions, in their titles. This practice is not uniform, as some journals opt to internationalise by omitting these affiliations. To gauge the impact of country names in journal titles on researchers' perceptions of journal quality, 408 researchers in sociology, psychology, environmental sciences, and physical chemistry in Brazil, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the USA were surveyed. The study reveals that most researchers believe that a journal's association with a specific country influences their perception of its quality (74.6%) and international readership (76.8%). Consequently, researchers tend to avoid journals with country-specific titles, suspecting limited readership or a predominant focus on papers from that country. However, exceptions exist, primarily in terms of perception, especially for American journals, which are often perceived as indistinguishable from mainstream international journals. Disciplinary variations emerge, with subject matter influencing perceptions. Subjects such as sociology, closely tied to local and national issues, exhibit a more (compared to e.g., chemistry) significant tendency toward recognising national journals. The inclusion of the term "international" in journal titles elicits mixed opinions, with some associating it with low quality or predatory journals, a perception that stems from the proliferation of predatory journals in some Asian and African countries. This study offers insight into researchers’ preferences and underscores the important role of journal titles in shaping researchers' perceptions of journals’ scope, quality and readership. In a challenging metric-driven research and publishing landscape, it is important to strike a balance between internationalisation and fostering diversity in scholarly journal publishing.

Predatory journals in dermatology: a bibliometric review

PurposeBy distorting the peer review process, predatory journals lure researchers and collect article processing charges (APCs) to earn income, thereby threatening clinical decisions. This study aims to identifying the characteristics of predatory publishing in the dermatology literature.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used Kscien's list to detect dermatology-related predatory journals. Bibliometric parameters were analyzed at the level of journals, publishers, documents and authors.FindingsSixty-one potential predatory dermatology publishers published 4,164 articles in 57 journals from 2000 to 2020, with most publishers claiming to be located in the United States. Most journals were 1–5 years old. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, two in Scopus and 43 in Google Scholar (GS). The average APC was 1,049 USD. Skin, patient, cutaneous, psoriasis, dermatitis and acne were the most frequently used keywords in the article's title. A total of 1,146 articles in GS received 4,725 citations. More than half of the journals had <10 citations. Also, 318 articles in Web of Science were contaminated by the most cited articles and 4.49% of the articles had reported their funding source. The average number of authors per article was 3.7. India, the United States and Japan had the most articles from 119 involved countries. Asia, Europe and North America had the most contributed authors; 5.2% of articles were written through international collaboration. A majority of authors were from high- and low-middle-income countries. Women contributed 43.57% and 39.66% as the first and corresponding authors, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsThe study had limitations, including heavy reliance on Kscien's list, potential for human error in manual data extraction and nonseparation of types of articles. Journals that only published dermatology articles were reviewed, so those occasionally publishing dermatology articles were missed. Predatory journals covering multiple subjects (Petrisor, 2016) may have resulted in overlooking some dermatology papers. This study did not claim to have covered all articles in predatory dermatology journals (PDJs) but evaluated many of them. The authors accept the claim that Kscien's list may have made a mistake in including journals.Originality/valueThe wide dispersion of authors involved in PDJs highlights the need to increase awareness among these authors.

Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.

Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review

BackgroundAcademic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to ‘predatory publishers’– groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base.MethodsA rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified.ResultsAfter searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes– understanding, and utilisation– of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services.ConclusionThere remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory publishers.

BrJAC 2023 – Growing and Building Bridges

BrJAC 2023 – Growing and Building Bridges

Reality or Illusion: Comparing Google Scholar and Scopus Data for Predatory Journals

abstract: 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.

Unmasking deceptive journals in education sciences: a study on prevalence, characteristics and visibility

This study explores the landscape of predatory journals in education sciences by examining their prevalence, publishers, countries of origin, launch years, malpractices, and internet search metrics, focusing on journals indexed in Cabell's Predatory Reports (n=443). Education science journals make up 2.75% of the total predatory journals listed in the database, primarily scattered across small-scale publishers. The USA, Nigeria, and India emerge as major hubs and results reveal a rapid growth in predatory journals between 2011-2015, followed by slower proliferation. Publication and peer review process violations are the most common malpractices. Internet search metrics indicate increased organic traffic to predatory journal websites from 2017 to 2021 raising concerns about their potential impact on the academic publishing panorama. The findings underscore the need for continued efforts to raise awareness, promote ethical publishing practices, and protect academic integrity in education sciences publications.

Mapping of Dental Journal Publishing in India - A Pilot Study on Epistemological Challenges in Southern Scholarly Publishing.

Epistemic injustice and the so-called "predators" or illegitimate publishers are the challenges of Southern scholarly publishing. Even though open access (OA) publishing is revolutionary in academic publishing, increased compensation from authors in the form of author processing charges (APCs) by commercial publishers has marginalized knowledge creation in the Global South. The purpose of this study was to map the nature and scope of dental journal publishing in India. We searched databases like Scopus, WoS, DOAJ, and the UGC CARE list for dental journals published in India. There are currently 35 active dental journals, which mostly belong to or are affiliated with non-profit organizations (26, 55.9%) or educational institutions (9, 25.8%). The publication of 25 journals has been outsourced to international commercial publishers, with most of these linked to non-profit organizations. About 39.8% of Indian dental journals are OA and almost half charge APCs. Around 60% of the Indian journals are indexed in Scopus, and slightly less than half (12) are included in the Web of Science (WoS). The monopoly of international commercial publishers and the presence of APCs are the real culprits of epistemic injustice in Indian dental journal publishing. Besides, the identification of regional legitimate publishers would help demarcate the term "predatory publishing". The post-colonial world witnessed an emergence in Southern scholarly publishing. However, the hegemony or neoliberal exploitation of international commercial publishers and the prolonged use of "predators" in scholarly debates marginalized the knowledge produced in the Global South.

Ab. No. 90 Design and Validation of Tool to Assess Application of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) in Physiotherapy Academicians Using Modified E-Delphi Method: A Pilot Study

Introduction: Student’s involvement in research activity is mandatory for physiotherapy undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD courses. Due to current advancement in science and technology, research has increased manifold in physiotherapy profession which strongly manifests the need of adapting GCP guidelines to develop and publish good quality research which can significantly contribute towards social needs. Various tools are available in research community to assess application of GCP guidelines in clinical and drug trials but there is no specific tool available to assess use of GCP guidelines in physiotherapy field. In physiotherapy institutes, academicians are pillars of research that will identify thrust areas of research. One of the major roles of academicians is to sensitize their students, the future researcher community about predatory journals, unethical research and publishing practices. As a physiotherapist, all of us have knowledge of research ethics and practices but sometimes we fail to apply it in real research scenario. Thus there is a need to design and develop a tool to assess application of GCP guidelines in practical situation and not merely testing theoretical knowledge. Methods: Cross sectional study carried out on physiotherapy academicians all over India included through snow ball sampling method. A questionnaire based on 4 basic ethical principles of research on human participants (ICMR 2017) was formulated. Validation was carried out by Delphi panel members like content experts, journal editor, researcher, epidemiologist, physiotherapist and experts from various fields. Controlled feedback provided to all panel members till consensus is achieved. The validated questionnaire was distributed to physiotherapy academicians via Google form. Each item will be analyzed using factor analysis to reach an agreement level. Results: Awaited. Conclusion: Awaited. Implications: This assessment tool will help to create awareness about practical ethics over theoretical knowledge in physiotherapy research and practice.

Editorial actions taken to reduce publishing references from predatory sources: A case study

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.

Publication Guideline Check! What do the Academician, Clinician and Post-graduate Student Think? A Cross-sectional Study

Abstract Introduction: Several journals are launched every month. The authors need to stay updated regarding selecting and publishing their research work in the right journal, considering the number of predatory journals present now. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted amongst academicians, clinicians and post-graduate students from the speciality of periodontology in India by using a valid questionnaire to understand the knowledge regarding the choice, publisher details, peer review system, indexing, archiving and publication fee guidelines. Inferential statistics and descriptive statistics were performed for the analysis. Results: The survey included academicians (n = 1832), clinicians (n = 370) and post-graduate students (n = 969) who consented to take part in the survey. Overall, the results showed that the post-graduate students had better knowledge regarding the selection and publication of articles in journals. Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the participants have an understanding of publication in niche speciality journals with a little ambiguity in the names of the journals.