Publication In Predatory Journals Research Articles

Implications of Publication Requirements for the Research Output of Arab Academics of Library and Information Science in Scopus in 2011– 2022 (Bibliometric Study)

The Arab can be considered as a new emergent region in the world by using advanced bibliometric methods, the development of science and technology in Unsure is explored. Purpose: This article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Arab academics of library and information science in Scopus, and reviews (12) years of Library and information science research in the Arab World affiliated with the (22) countries of the Arab League: a bibliometric study 2011–2022. As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies. Design/methodology/approach: Three metrics were chosen to analyses the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output: publications in predatory journals, publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective. Findings: Study results highlight, that: Firstly: publications of Arab academics of library and information science in predatory journals rose to (12.162 % in 2011-2013) – (39.190 in 2020-2022). Secondly: the share of publications in local journals reached the Peak of fourth period 44.595% in 2020-2022. Thirdly: though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011, but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2. Summaries: the study findings highlight, that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria. Research limitation: The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements. Practical implications: The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies. Originality/value: This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Arab academics of library and information science in Scopus & local journals.

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.

What Do They Say? Authors of Articles in Predatory Journalism and Mass Communication Journals Speak

Journalism and mass communication (J&MC) research examines crucial issues in democratic and undemocratic societies, such as freedom of expression, misinformation and disinformation, government regulation of communications, defamation and invasion of privacy, media technologies and economics, and journalists’ professional practices. Unethical scholarship practices may weaken societal and public policy goals of fair, independent, and accurate reporting and transparent governance. This case study analyses how one predatory J&MC journal recruits authors to submit their work and why some scholars succumb to such invitations. This research contributes to both the growing scholarship about predatory publishing practices and to further understanding of how such journals deceptively exploit authors willing to pay for publication without the traditional peer review and editing. This study uses probability sampling of authors who published 504 articles in the journal between 2011 and 2021 to seek their participation in a survey and interviews. Most authors are from developing countries, but others are from the developed world, including faculty at top-tier research institutions. Surprisingly, some published in this journal despite knowing its predatory nature. In such instances, they might benefit from a lack of policies at their universities discouraging publication in predatory journals and may receive benefits from those institutions. Some authors regretted publishing in the journal, especially if they were unaware of its predatory character, because it deprived them of an opportunity to disseminate that research in legitimate academic venues. There are significant societal and political implications as well.

Şaibeli Yayınlar ve Akademik Yozlaşma

Şaibeli yayıncılar ve dergileri “akademisyenleri kendilerinde yayın yapmak için aldatan, gönderilen yayın taslaklarını nitelikli bir akran değerlendirmesine tabi tutmadan belirli bir ücret karşılığında hızlıca kabul ederek yayımlayan dolandırıcılar” olarak tanımlanmıştır. Ancak günümüz koşullarında şaibeli dergilere en büyük rağbet, aldatılarak tuzağa düşürülmeye çalışılan genç akademisyenlerden değil, durumun gayet farkında olan deneyimli akademik çevrelerden gelmektedir. Bu çevrelerin şaibeli yayınlarını genellikle önemli bir kadro ataması veya görevde yükselmenin hemen öncesindeki süreçte yaptıkları rapor edilmektedir. Bu durum akademide ciddi liyakat problemlerinin doğmasına neden olmuştur. Durumun uluslararası yansımaları da ülkemiz adına yüz kızartıcıdır. Ne yazıktır ki, şaibeli dergilerde en çok yayın yapılan ülkeler sıralamasında Türkiye üçüncü sıradadır. Bu derlemenin amacı, şaibeli dergilerde yayın yapma eyleminin yarattığı kirlenmenin önlenmesine katkı sağlamak ve Spor Bilimleri alanında faaliyet gösteren özellikle genç akademisyenleri bu eylemin içinde olmamaları konusunda bilgilendirmektir.

The Danger of Predator Journal Publication for Researchers

Scientific publications in the form of scientific journals are one way for researchers to share information related to the results of research that has been done, besides that scientific publications can also be used to build the reputation of researchers both in the academic and research fields. However, there is a danger of publication which until now has not been known by novice researchers who have just entered the world of scientific publications, namely publication in predatory journals. This is an important thing that needs to be known well and also must be watched out for by novice researchers. This is because predatory journals are scientific journals that are not of good quality, where the journals that are managed are only for financial gain through expensive publication fees and do not pay attention to aspects of research quality and also a good peer review process in good governance. scientific journals. In researching and writing this journal, researchers discuss some of the dangers associated with publishing predatory journals for researchers in terms of decreasing academic reputation, publication costs and also falsification of research data published in a predatory journal. In addition, researchers also look at the specific and clear characteristics of journals that can be categorized as predatory journals.

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

AbstractThis study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus‐indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower‐ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes.

Implications of Publication Requirements for the Research Output of Ukrainian Academics in Scopus in 1999–2019

Abstract Purpose This article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus in 1999–2019. As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies. Design/methodology/approach Three metrics were chosen to analyse the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output: publications in predatory journals, publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective. Findings Study results highlight, that, firstly, publications of Ukrainian authors in predatory journals rose to 1% in 2019. Secondly, the share of publications in local journals reached the peak of 47.3% in 2015. In 2019 it fell to 31.8%. Thirdly, though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011, but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2. To summarise, the study findings highligh, that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria. Research limitation The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements. Practical implications The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies. Originality/value This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus.

Vulnerability of African Neurosurgery to Predatory Journals: An Electronic Survey of Aspiring Neurosurgeons, Residents, and Consultants

Predatory journals (PJs) publish research with little to no rigorous peer review in exchange for money. It is unclear what proportion of researchers is vulnerable to PJs and which factors are associated with vulnerability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of African neurosurgery researchers to PJs and identify their correlates. A 3-part electronic survey in English and French versions was distributed via social media to African consultants and trainees from November 1 to December 1, 2021. Bivariable relationships were evaluated with χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman ρ correlation, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were 101 respondents to the survey (response rate 56.1%). Respondents had mean age of 34.9 years, 82.2% were male (n= 83), 38.6% were consultant neurosurgeons (n= 39), and 33.7% were from Central Africa (n= 34). Of respondents, 66 had published ≥ 1 articles in the past, and 13 had published at least 1 article in a PJ. A PJ had contacted 34 respondents via e-mail, and 8 respondents had reviewed articles for a PJ. The Think. Check. Submit initiative and Beall's list were familiar to 19 and 13 respondents, respectively. Publication in PJs was correlated with the respondent's age (R= 0.23, P= 0.02) and total scholarly output (R= 0.38, P < 0.01). Young African neurosurgery researchers are vulnerable to PJs primarily because they are not familiar with the concept of PJs or how to identify them.

Canadian academics' use of predatory journals.

IntroductionPredatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian universities.MethodsArticles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles.ResultsAll universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size.DiscussionCanadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This study suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers’ submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal’s business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one’s manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one’s work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

Efficiency of “Publish or Perish” Policy—Some Considerations Based on the Uzbekistan Experience

Researchers from Uzbekistan are leading the global list of publications in predatory journals. The current paper reviews the principles of implementation of the “publish or perish policy” in Uzbekistan with an overarching aim of detecting the factors that are pushing more and more scholars to publish the results of their studies in predatory journals. Scientific publications have historically been a cornerstone in the development of science. For the past five decades, the quantity of publications has become a common indicator for determining academic capacity. Governments and institutions are increasingly employing this indicator as an important criterion for promotion and recruitment; simultaneously, researchers are being awarded Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees for the number of articles they publish in scholarly journals. Many talented academics have had a pay rise or promotion declined due to a short or nonexistent bibliography, which leads to significant pressure on academics to publish. The “publish or perish” principle has become a trend in academia and the key performance indicator for habilitation in Uzbekistan. The present study makes a case for re-examining the criteria set by the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Republic of Uzbekistan for candidates applying for Ph.D. and D.Sc. as well as faculty promotion requirements in the light of current evidence for the deteriorating academic performance of scholars.

NIGERIA’S LOW CONTRIBUTION TO RECOGNIZED WORLD RESEARCH LITERATURE: CAUSES AND REMEDIES

ABSTRACT We present a first-time study on identifying the causes and remedies to Nigeria’s low contribution to globally recognized research literature. A mixed research approach involving 300 academic staff from several areas of specialization in southern Nigeria was adopted, using structured questionnaire and semi-structured interview schedule. Data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic technique. Furthermore, 43.7%, 28.6%, and 27.7% of the respondents were from the university, polytechnic, and college of education system, respectively. While 78.4% of the respondents agreed that the high cost of open access publication in top journals influenced Nigeria’s low contribution to research literature, over 75% reported that the low contribution was due to high cost of attending international conferences. Other factors identified were stringent conditions for paper acceptance (89.7%), scarcity of relevant information about Africa (85.4%), and paucity of high-impact journals in the libraries of Nigerian tertiary institutions (6.7%). Others were poor funding, non-usage of research findings by policymakers, lack of adequate facilities, and high penchant for publication in predatory journals, informed by promotion criteria not supportive of quality. Participants advocated for increased funding, reduced conference fees, and entrenchment of collaboration between reputable publishers abroad and African publishers.

Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note

BackgroundFrance ranks 9th worldwide for scientific publication in orthopedics and the increase in both the quantity and the quality of its scientific production has been described in detail. On the other hand, publishing by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals is more obscure. The journals in question are difficult to identify but are based on an open-access model with article processing charges (APC), except in rare cases that are difficult to specify, as they are not stated at the time of submission. The increase in the number of predatory journals over the last 10 years led us to attempt to assess the rate at which French orthopedic surgeons publish in them, as revealed by investigation of the SIGAPS bibliometric database. HypothesisOver the period 2008–2017, the rate of publications by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals was less than 5%. Material and methodThe SIGAPS database contains the detail of publications by French orthopedic surgeons members of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and was used to analyse all such articles (journal article, review or editorial) so as to isolate articles with PubMed-Not-MEDLINE status falling in the SIGAPS non-classified (NC) category and to determine the predatory status of the journal using established lists, such as Beall's list or that drawn up by StopPredatoryJournals. In case of difficulty in determining predatory status, we applied the criteria defined by Beall and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). ResultsOut of 6056 articles in the SIGAPS database published by French orthopedic surgeons between 2008 and 2017, 323 could be suspected of being published in a predatory journal, but only 33 were so confirmed: i.e., 0.55% of French orthopedic scientific output over the study period. Eleven appeared in journals whose publishers were listed as predatory by Beall, 21 appeared in journals whose publishers had been listed as predatory on Beall's list in 2012 with the dubious editorial practices defined by Beall, and one article appeared in a journal found to be predatory on analysis of its editorial board. More than half of these articles (58%) were subject to APCs averaging $400. DiscussionDespite a strong increase in the number of predatory journals over the last decade, very few French orthopedic surgeons resort to them to publish their work. Difficulty of identification and authors’ lack of knowledge about this type of journals may account for some of these submissions. Scientific teams need to check certain criteria before submitting to a journal: short time to publication and low APC should be taken as warning signs, and any demand for payment after acceptance certainly raises the question of the journal's predatory nature. Level of evidenceIV; retrospective study without control group.

Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

BackgroundThe increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology s (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing “legitimate” or “trustworthy” journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted.ResultsOf 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more “yes” answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool.ConclusionThere is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Do Tenure and Promotion Policies Discourage Publications in Predatory Journals?

Predatory journals are a concern in academia because they lack meaningful peer review and engage in questionable business practices. Nevertheless, predatory journals continue to flourish, in part because of increasing expectations that academic researchers demonstrate publishing productivity in quantifiable forms. We examined tenure and promotion policies at twenty Canadian universities and did not find any language that explicitly discourages publications in predatory journals. Instead, subjective criteria such as ‘quality’ are commonly used to assess the appropriateness of publication outlets. Additionally, information on avoiding predatory journals was located only on the library’s website at nearly every institution, and the information was primarily directed at students rather than at faculty members. We argue that if predatory journals are truly a threat to the integrity of academic research and knowledge dissemination, universities must take more substantive action against them. We recommend four institutional initiatives to discourage faculty members from publishing in predatory journals.

Falling prey to predatory journals: Experiences of nursing faculty

BackgroundThe term ‘predatory journals’ initially appeared in PubMed in 2012 and was coined by Professor Jeffrey Beall in a note published in the Nature Journal. It is used to denote fake journals with questionable peer review, fast track publishing processes against monetary payment and a predatory approach to target researchers through spam email. PurposeThis study aimed to explore the experiences of nursing faculty concerning publication in predatory journals. MethodsA simple qualitative design was used. The setting included a college of nursing in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. A purposive sampling technique, with eight faculty members, were included in the study. In-depth interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and analyzed using a simple content analysis approach. ResultsThree themes emerged with nine subthemes namely: i) research professional obligations; publishing pressure, research competitiveness, professional enhancement and promotion; ii) fast publications; escaping peer review, paying for quick service; iii) after-effects; emotional turmoil; characteristics of predatory journals. ConclusionThis study showed that publishing in a predatory journal has serious consequences, both professional and personal. The findings also highlighted that anyone in the academic setting could fall prey to these journals. Lastly, despite the increasing knowledge of predatory publishing, there is still a lack of awareness about this dark side of publications. Hence, educational awareness of predatory journals is needed. It is also recommended that research, including other disciplines, be completed.

Pengenalan Open Journal System (OJS) untuk Publikasi Ilmiah Mahasiswa

INTRODUCTION OF OPEN JOURNAL SYSTEM FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION OF STUDENTS. This activity is intended to provide understanding for students that according to the latest regulations, students are required to conduct scientific publications. Scientific publications are intended to communicate the results of academic research carried out to contribute to the development of science. However, many students do not understand how to publish their work properly. This training provides material on the ethics of scientific publications and how to submit articles in scientific journals. Students are introduced to ways to find accredited journals in accordance with the field of study. This is done to avoid student publications in predatory journals. As a result of this activity, students understand the business processes of journals for the scientific publication of their work. They also learned that each journal had its own unique style of environment so they had to pay close attention to the author’s guidelines.

Do Preys Prey on Their Predators? Confusion Over Predatory "Hage-taka" Journals.

For the last several years, predatory journals have been a topic of discussion in top scientific journals, such as Nature. Predatory journals are problematic because they create public mistrust of scientific publication as a whole by the mass production of non-credible publications with the sole aim of profit. Recently, articles in a Japanese newspaper and online articles exposed domestic institutions for the number of publications in predatory journals, saying that they “abused predatory journals to increase the number of their publications and falsely inflate their academic achievements.” We do not subscribe to this point of view because publications in predatory journals do not count as scholarly achievements, and we believe it is an information literacy problem. We feel strongly that it is both important and beneficial for the readers of The Japan Medical Association Journal to be aware of and understand this issue.

Reference Letters and the Specter of Publications in Predatory Journals

Reference Letters and the Specter of Publications in Predatory Journals

Economists behaving badly: publications in predatory journals

The extent of publishing in predatory journals in economics is examined. A simple model of researcher behavior is presented to explore those factors motivating an academic to publish in predatory journals as defined by Beall (Criteria for determining predatory open access publishers, Unpublished document, 3rd edn, 2015. https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ ). Beall’s lists are used to identify predatory journals included in the Research Papers in Economics archives. The affiliations of authors publishing in these outlets indicate that the geographic dispersion of authorship is widespread. A very small subset of authors is registered on RePEc. A surprising number of authors who are in the RePEc top 5% also published in predatory journals in 2015.