Chinese Ph.D. students' perception of predatory journals

The aim of this study is to investigate Chinese Ph.D. students' attitudes towards predatory journals. An online questionnaire was distributed and 332 respondents from various disciplines and institutions shared their opinions. The result showed that the majority of respondents (n=271; 81.32%) never heard about predatory journals. Among those who knew what predatory journals are (n=61, 18.68%), thought that predatory journals had bad reputation, low quality and poor peer-review process. They agreed that such journals charge high APC but published quickly. The results also indicated that the awareness of predatory journals was influenced by respondents' gender, research experience and publishing experience. Male respondents knew more about predatory journals than female respondents. Respondents who had rich research and publishing experiences were more likely to identify predatory journals. Regarding further publishing intention, 124 respondents (37.35%) said they might try predatory journals to achieve assessing requirements, and 208(62.65%) respondents refused

Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data.

OBJECTIVES To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour. DESIGN Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics' journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database. SETTING Peer review of journal articles. PARTICIPANTS Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons. MEASUREMENTS Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year. RESULTS Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%). CONCLUSION To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing

Who Publishes in “Predatory” Journals?

Many open access journals have a reputation for being of low quality and being dishonest with regard to peer review and publishing costs. Such journals are labeled “predatory” journals. This study examines author profiles for some of these “predatory” journals as well as for groups of more well-recognized open access journals. We collect and analyze the publication record, citation count, and geographic location of authors from the various groups of journals. Statistical analyses verify that each group of journals has a distinct author population. Those who publish in “predatory” journals are, for the most part, young and inexperienced researchers from developing countries. We believe that economic and sociocultural conditions in these developing countries have contributed to the differences found in authorship between “predatory” and “nonpredatory” journals

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.</p

Global Awareness and Pandemic in Predatory Journals and Publishing: A Bibliometric Analysis

Open access publishing not only increases accessibility to library materials and publications but also provokes the growth of predatory journals. The objectives of this study were to 1) corroborate the increasing concern of predatory journals, 2) identify journals publishing articles that commented on this issue, and 3) pinpoint occupations, academic disciplines, and geographic locations of these authors. This bibliometric study covered 2010-2020 tracking the library and information science literatures on the subject of predatory journals and outlined the trends. Analytical results of this study showed that there was an increasing global awareness of predatory journals among academic librarians and the scholarly community. The findings suggest a critical need for establishing information literacy in academia in the context of predatory journals, prompting academic librarians and scholarly authors to collaboratively deal with the pandemic of predatory publications

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.

BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P&lt;.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P&lt;.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing

Predatory publishing: A threat to the credibility of science

Predatory journals pose a global threat to science. Young scientists and scholars are easy victims of the predatory publications. Predatory publications reduce the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the scientific works published. The predatory publications are worthless, just a waste of time, resources, money, and efforts. Predatory publications undermine the value of legitimate publications. In order to discourage predatory publications, educational and research institutions should set the rules for publication in the journals that must be indexed in web of science, Journal Citation Reports (JCR, Clarivate Analytics, formerly Thomson-Reuters) or other famous scientific databases such as Scopus, DOAJ, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Citation of articles from predatory journals should be discouraged. The students, academics, and researchers should be careful to avoid predatory publications to maintain their credentials

Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: common journals in Bealls list and in the VABB-SHW

This report gives the results of the comparison of Beall’s list of predatory open access journals with the VABB-SHW lists of journals – including all journals that are being or have been indexed in the Web of Science – as of July 2013. The report may facilitate the GP’s decision making. More generally, the report may raise awareness on the prevalence of predatory open access publishing in the social sciences and humanities in Flanders. The number of articles in predatory open access journals submitted to ECOOM-UAntwerpen by the universities in view of inclusion in the VABB-SHW is increasing in recent years. Whereas no publications in predatory open access journals appeared in 2000-2002, the yearly number remained below 5 in the period 2003-2009. In 2010 the number rose to 5, and then jumped to 15 in 2011 and 24 in 2012. This illustrates that in Flanders too predatory open access publishing is gaining ground. Nonetheless, the percentage of publications in predatory open access journals remains very small thus far (0.20%, the largest proportion for any year thus far, in 2012)

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped. Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors. Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal