Predatory Journals & Research Publication
Academic Articles on Predatory Journals
- An Integrated Paradigm Shift to Deal With Predatory Publishing Abstract: The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system.
- Differentiating Predatory Scholarship: Best Practices in Scholarly Publication. Abstract: The intent of this article is to define predatory publishing, identify the risks and costs associated with publishing scholarship with these types of organizations and to provide recommendations for best practices how a potential author can protect themselves against predatory organizations. Methods: A thorough review of the literature concerning predatory publishing was conducted and gleaned for best practices along with the authors’ experiences. Key findings: Pharmacy scholars and researchers worldwide recognize the virtues of the open access (OA) publication system, which is intended to freely disseminate research electronically, stimulate innovation and improve access to scholarship. Both subscription‐based and OA publication systems, however, have potential areas of conflicts, including coordination of the peer‐review process and the potential for the publisher to capitalize on selling the commodity in a capitalistic society. The intent of OA is welcomed; however, publishers are still in a business and profits need to be made. It is by the exploitation of the model that has given rise to a small but growing subset known as predatory publishers. Conclusions: Pharmacy researchers and clinicians alike need to be aware of predatory organizations, both publishers and meeting organizers, when seeking a venue to publish their own scholarly research.
- Moral Panic, Predatory Publishers, Peer Review, and the Emperor's New Clothes. Abstract: The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated. It is important, however, to resist the urge to simply join in this crusade without pausing to examine the assumptions upon which such concerns are based. It is often assumed that established journals are almost sacrosanct, and that their quality, secured by peer review, is established. It is also routinely presumed that such journals are immune to the lure of easy money in return for publication. Rather than looking at the deficits that may be apparent in the practices and products of predatory publishers, this commentary invites you to explore the weaknesses that have been exposed in traditional academic journals but are seldom discussed in the context of predatory publishing. The inherent message for health and medical services staff, researchers, academics, and students is, as always, to critically evaluate all sources of information, whatever their provenance.
- Predatory Journals in Journalism and Mass Communication: A Case Study of Deceptions. Predatory publishing is an increasingly difficult challenge to ignore because it threatens the integrity of research literature and scholarship. Still, this scholarly area is largely overlooked in journalism and media communications (J&MC) literature. This case study examines two J&MC journals from companies listed as possibly predatory by analyzing the experiences of scholars purportedly affiliated with them. Using a survey and interviews, the analysis suggests that these journals used deceptive and unethical tactics to recruit scholars as ostensible editorial board members and reviewers. Some scholars were listed without their consent or knowledge, and others asked unsuccessfully to be removed from the journals' posted list of editorial board members and/or reviewers. However, some say they find their affiliation rewarding intellectually, for their careers, and for the discipline. The findings have practical implications for J&MC scholarship, especially for developing country academics with insufficient English-language proficiency and who face publish-or-perish pressures from their universities and government higher education ministries
- Predatory Publishing: What Medical Communicators Need to Know. Abstract: The rise of predatory journals poses a risk to the integrity of science and therefore medical communicators need to know about their practices. Upon receipt of a publication fee, predatory journals publish manuscripts regardless of their scientific merit, very often without any peer review, and without providing editorial services. To maximise profit, such journals disregard all aspects of scientific integrity and foster the dissemination of bad and bogus science, lobby materials, and conspiracy theories. Publishing in predatory journals can have dire consequences for authors, their careers, and the reputation of their institutions. Medical communicators can help authors avoid falling prey to predatory publishers.
- A Survey of Publishing Practices of Academic Pharmacists & Nurses in the U.S. Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in U.S. to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory." Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF). Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so. Conclusion: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.
- Publishing in Predatory Journals: Guidelines for Nursing Faculty in Promotion/Tenure Policies. Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing. Design: This study used a cross‐sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research‐intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools. Findings: The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available. Conclusion: This study examined how schools of nursing in research‐intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low‐quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided. Clinical relevance: Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice.
- The Impact of Beall's Lists of Predatory Journals on Academic Publishing Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with or distinguished from open access journals. We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic. We included 280 English language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications. The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing. The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall. The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access. This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.
