InTech Research Articles

Addressing the Pervasive Issue of Predatory Journals and Conferences: An Indian Researcher's Perspective.

Addressing the Pervasive Issue of Predatory Journals and Conferences: An Indian Researcher's Perspective.

Scholarly research outputs and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals

Scholarly research outputs and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals

Scholarly research outputs and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals

Scholarly research outputs and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals

Publication practices of Kazakhstani scientists: Analysis of the impact of predatory journals and public policy

Publication practices of Kazakhstani scientists: Analysis of the impact of predatory journals and public policy

Médecine Tropicale et Santé Internationale takes a stand against editorial predation

Warnings against predatory journals get stronger. Designed to capture manuscripts with the promise of rapid publication, the main aim of these journals is to charge abusive publication fees. Sometimes boasting imaginary impact factors, they are not indexed and offer no guarantee of visibility, accessibility or durability of the published article. Above all, they have no concern for the rigor and scientific integrity of the work they publish.

Unmasking deception: Exposing the predatory practices of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research”

In the pursuit of academic excellence, scholars are dependent on trustworthy journals to disseminate their research and contribute to the collective body of knowledge. However, the academic community is not immune to deceptive practices. This letter highlights the case of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research," where my name, along with esteemed colleagues, was falsely associated with the editorial board without consent. Despite repeated efforts to address this issue, the journal remains unresponsive. This letter announces our intention to publish an exposé article, meticulously uncovering the fraudulent practices of the journal and its publisher. A subsequent public statement aims to warn the academic community about the deceptive nature of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research" and emphasizes the collective responsibility of scholars to uphold ethical publishing standards. Through this exposé, we hope to safeguard the integrity of academic pursuit and raise awareness about the risks associated with engaging with predatory journals.

Predatory journals and publishing fraud

No abstract available

Obtrusive Plagiarism and Data Falsification in Biological Sciences: Trends and Remedies

Scientific misconduct includes plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The intentional presentation of other’s work as own work without any authority is referred as plagiarism. Plagiarism also contains other’s images, structure and designed elements. It affects both published and unpublished materials obtained through evaluation of dissertations, peer review process or grant proposals. Fabrication is another research misconduct in which some fake activities are committed such as making up data, results and reporting them. If there is no any experimentation, it is also called fabrication. The Study shows that 60% of articles published in predatory journals are not found to be cited over the five-year period from the date of publication. Clear ethical standards should be made for assuring the researchers whether their work break certain codes or not. The investigation of organizations must be transparent, fair and prompt into research irregularities.

Pressentir la qualité d'un article scientifique à partir de sa forme

Various causes, such as the increasing pace of scientific publication and the proliferation of predatory or grey journals, mean that "bad" articles are published in scientific or technological journals even when they are peer-reviewed. In this course, we use an article that has actually been published to discuss the relationship between flaws in form and possible flaws in content, and we look at whether or not it is possible to use the information given in articles that appear to be inadequate in form for personal scientific work at a later date.

PREDATORY PUBLISHING AND WASTE OF RESOURCE

PREDATORY PUBLISHING AND WASTE OF RESOURCE

Predatory activities require coordinated action by publisher’ and editors’ organizations: a case report

Background: Scientists are confronted nowadays with a tsunami of requests by preda-tory journals to contribute. Objectives: To inform potential authors, readers, reviewers, and editors of scien-tific articles about the ever-growing flow of low-quality publications and their neg-ative consequences, based on the author’s personal experience and on scrutiny of more than 360 invitations, received over 4 months, from journals to contribute a manuscript. Methods: The requests to contribute a manuscript received by the author during 4 months were analysed for the characteristics of the journals and publishers issuing the invitations. Results: A total of 368 requests were received during 4 months (123 days), on average 3 per day, from a total of 216 journals. Of these, 164 (~76%) were no more than 10 years old, and 129 of the 162 journals (~80%) that sent an invitation to contribute have no editor-in-chief; for 12 journals (~7%), the starting year could not be ascertained. Many journals are not located where they claim to be (typically the UK or the United States) but rather in countries such as India and Singapore. Slightly more than half of 216 journals (~54%) deal with medical matters. Conclusions: Predatory journals pose a severe threat to the quality of scientific infor-mation, which is why attempts should be made to stop them. A proposal to prepare an indisputable alternative for Beall’s List of potentially predatory journals is presented.

Academic Integrity: Author-Related and Journal-Related Issues

Introduction: Author-related and journal-related metrics have long been the target for manipulations on part of some researchers, journals, and occasionally countries, eager to rank higher or get other benefits. Games played with metrics are abundant and may be triggered by rigid “publish-or-perish” national or university policies and consequent pursuit for benefits. In addition, new technologies make headway to unprecedented schemes in research production and promotion. The JLE Editors aim to inform JLE readers of their stance on the current revision of the JLE ethical guidelines for authors, editors, and reviewers in response to the new challenges.
 Basic Concepts Related to Academic Integrity: The key concepts related to academic integrity are commented on, including some particulars about academic integrity, plagiarism, academic misconduct, fabrication and falsification of data, peer review manipulations, citation manipulations, and predatory journals.
 Revisions in the JLE Editorial Policy on Authorship: With the ChatGPT entering the realm of science, the technology caused a heated debate over the ethical aspects of Artificial Intellect (AI) generated submissions to scholarly journals. The JLE editors share a rather popular stance that submissions cannot be subject to ChatGPT generation or revision.
 Conclusion: The JLE has been revising its ethical guidelines as of authorship, including the limits for ChatGPT uses in submissions. The JLE editors apprise all stakeholders of the revised guidelines that cover the use of generative pre-trained transformers in submission generation.

Publication requirement for faculty promotion in medical institutions in India: 'Mind the gap'.

Background . We assessed the balance between the number of publications required by medical teachers and the publication space available in the Indian medical journals. Methods . The Medical Council of India (MCI) website, its guidelines and documents were searched and we extracted data on the number of medical colleges, undergraduate and postgraduate seats and faculty requirement. The required number of assistant professors and associate professors was calculated. The publication requirements were estimated according to MCI's February 2020 guidelines. A publication which satisfied the above guidelines for promotion was counted as 'eligible publication'. Indian medical journals indexed in any of the MCI-permitted databases were identified, and the number of eligible articles in them in 2019 was counted. Results . India has a total of 79 798 MBBS seats, 33 025 postgraduate seats and 4231 superspecialty seats in MCI-certified medical institutions and to teach them 35 285 assistant professors and 23 116 associate professors are required. Assuming that each publication could serve a maximum of 3 teachers, we will need approximately 50 696 eligible publications in the next 7 years. A search of applicable databases, identified 162 unique Indian medical journals of which 79 were indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central. Among the remaining 63 were indexed in DOAJ, 14 in EMBASE, 3 in Scopus and 3 were indexed only in WOSSCIE. These journals cumulatively published a total of 8508 eligible publications in 2019. Conclusion . The publication space in Indian medical journals is limited, thus there is a need to have a national medical repository such as MedRxiv to prevent publication in predatory journals.

Revealing deceptive tactics: uncovering predatory practices within the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research"

In the pursuit of academic excellence, scholars are dependent on trustworthy journals to disseminate their research and contribute to the collective body of knowledge. However, the academic community is not immune to deceptive practices. This letter highlights the case of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research," where my name, along with esteemed colleagues, was falsely associated with the editorial board without consent. Despite repeated efforts to address this issue, the journal remains unresponsive. This letter announces our intention to publish an exposé article, meticulously uncovering the fraudulent practices of the journal and its publisher. A subsequent public statement aims to warn the academic community about the deceptive nature of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research" and emphasizes the collective responsibility of scholars to uphold ethical publishing standards. Through this exposé, we hope to safeguard the integrity of academic pursuit and raise awareness about the risks associated with engaging with predatory journals.

An artificial intelligence tool misclassifies sport science journals as predatory

ObjectivesThe choice of a scholarly journal, as opposed to a predatory journal, might impact a sport scientist's career negatively if the wrong choice is made, especially at an early stage of their research and publishing careers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly impacting sport science and academia. In this study, we tested the accuracy and sensitivity of an AI-driven tool, applied specifically to sport science. DesignOur research relies on the use of a new and free online AI-driven tool, the AJPC System, which claims the ability to distinguish “normal” (scholarly) from “suspected predatory” (unscholarly) journals. MethodsThe AJPC System was used to assess (1 December 2023) the classification of all ranked sport journals (n = 124), namely those in all four quartiles (Q1–Q4) of SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), in the “Sports Science” category. ResultsThe AJPC System considered 47/124 journals to be “suspected predatory”, mostly in Q4 journals (54.8 % of total), casting a negative image on their academic standing. ConclusionsSport scientists are likely to consider SJR Q1–Q4 journals to be relatively safe to publish in, reliable and reputable, and might be confused with the “suspected predatory” label assigned to 37.9 % of those journals. The AJPC System is thus misleading sport scientists.

Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers’ ethics

ABSTRACT The “publish or perish” approach has become an integral part of an academic’s life when seeking positions, striving for promotions, or competing for funding. This approach often hinges on journal-based metrics which push researchers to seek publication in journals indexed in the Web of Science. Due to the pressure to publish a certain number of publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science, researchers might attempt to find a journal with a lower impact factor, i.e., less popular and visible journals in the scientific community. Even more concerning is the fact that researchers might publish their results in predatory journals. This paper analyzes the consequence of introducing a journal indicators-based academic evaluation by analyzing productivity and publication patterns of researchers. Moreover, this paper investigates the correlation between journal-based academic evaluation rules and researchers’ ethics. The analysis is based on bibliometric data collected from the Web of Science database. The case study subject is the Serbian research landscape before and after the introduction of a journal metrics-based academic evaluation.

ETHICS AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION IN UKRAINE: THE CURRENT STATE

The issue of ethics in scientific publications remains both relevant and of paramount importance. The literature has extensively documented misconduct issues, problems in publishing and ethics all around the world. Scimago Journal and Country Rank ranked Ukraine in the 45th position globally, underscoring its significant presence in the global research landscape. Despite the good position, from personal observation in scientific publications in Ukraine, the weak sides are the absence of a clear hypothesis, predatory publication, plagiarism, and incorrect citation. The prevalent tendency in the Ukrainian academic community «to publish for the sake of publication, not to be read or cited» is a concern that should be addressed. This inclination is one of the primary issues contributing to the challenges mentioned above. The academic community in Ukraine must shift its focus toward producing high-quality, impactful research that not only gets published but is also read, cited, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

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.

The implementation of the professorial ranking system in Cambodia: Opportunities and concerns

Cambodia recently implemented an academic ranking system for professorial titles in the education sector under the supervision of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport through the issuance of two Royal Decrees in 2023 to appoint professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. This article explores the opportunities and plausible concerns associated with this new development, outlining the criteria for professorial appointments and discussing the impact on Cambodia’s higher education and research landscape. The opportunities arising from the implementation of the Royal Decree on Professorship are various, including increased interest in research and publication among Cambodian academics and the development of a performance-based academic system, which provide greater hope and a more positive outlook for the development of academic research in Cambodia. However, this development may lead to potential unethical academic practices, such as a surge in proxy writing and publication in predatory or low-quality journals. The article provides some recommendations to enhance the good practices of the academic ranking system in Cambodian higher education by highlighting the salient criteria for professorship assessment and mechanisms to improve its implementation. It concludes that the implementation of the professorial ranking system is a commendable step towards academic excellence in Cambodia, fostering a culture of meritocracy and providing a well-defined career path for university academics in Cambodia.

Facilitators and barriers to dealing with questionable journals in management science

PurposeScientific publishing has recently faced challenges in dealing with questionable (predatory and hijacked) journals. The presence of questionable journals in any field, including management science, will yield junk science. Although there are studies about questionable journals in other fields, these journals have not yet been examined in the field of business and management. This study aims to identify facilitators and barriers to dealing with questionable journals in management science.Design/methodology/approachA Delphi research method consisting of three rounds was used in this study. Data were collected from 12 experts in the first two rounds, and ten experts in the final round.FindingsThe present study shows that management science is vulnerable to questionable journals. A total of 18 barriers and eight facilitators to dealing with questionable journals in management science were found. The present study also identifies some new barriers and facilitators for avoiding questionable journals, which are specific to management science and have not been identified in previous research. Most of these barriers and facilitators were identified as “important” or “very important”. Publishers and scientific databases, government, the research community and universities and research centers were identified as critical players in overcoming challenges posed by questionable journals.Originality/valueThe number of articles that investigate predatory journals in management science is limited, and there is no research focused specifically on hijacked journals in this field. This study identifies facilitators and obstacles to dealing with predatory and hijacked journals in the field of management, by gathering opinions from experts. Thus it is the first study to examine hijacked journals in the field of management science. It is also one of the few studies that examine predatory and hijacked journals by conducting exploratory research rather than with a descriptive/conceptual approach.