J Korean Med Sci.  2017 May;32(5):713-717. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.713.

Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science

• Gasparyan
• Nurmashev
• Udovik EE
• Koroleva A
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2375069
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.713

Abstract

This article highlights the issue of wasteful publishing practices that primarily affect non-mainstream science countries and rapidly growing academic disciplines. Numerous start-up open access publishers with soft or nonexistent quality checks and huge commercial interests have created a global crisis in the publishing market. Their publishing practices have been thoroughly examined, leading to the blacklisting of many journals by Jeffrey Beall. However, it appears that some subscription journals are also falling short of adhering to the international recommendations of global editorial associations. Unethical editing agencies that promote their services in non-mainstream science countries create more problems for inexperienced authors. It is suggested to regularly monitor the quality of already indexed journals and upgrade criteria of covering new sources by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, and specialist bibliographic databases. Regional awareness campaigns to inform stakeholders of science communication about the importance of ethical writing, transparency of editing services, and permanent archiving can be also helpful for eradicating unethical publishing practices.

Keyword

Publication Ethics; Periodicals as Topic; Bibliographic Databases; Non-Mainstream Science

MeSH Terms

Accidental Falls
Databases, Bibliographic
Periodicals as Topic
Specialization
Writing

Reference

1. Laakso M, Björk BC. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012; 10:124. PMID: 23088823.

2. Kurata K, Morioka T, Yokoi K, Matsubayashi M. Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e60925. PMID: 23658683.

3. Van Noorden R. Open-access website gets tough. Nature. 2014; 512:17. PMID: 25100463.

4. Directory of Open Access Journals (SE). DOAJ to remove approximately 3300 journals [Internet]. accessed on 21 February 2017. Available at https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/doaj-to-remove-approximately-3300-journals/.

5. Directory of Open Access Journals (SE). About DOAJ [Internet]. accessed on 21 February 2017. Available at https://doaj.org/about.

6. Vogel G. Scientific publishing. Open access gains support; fees and journal quality deter submissions. Science. 2011; 331:273. PMID: 21252322.

7. Seethapathy GS, Santhosh Kumar JU, Hareesha AS. India’s scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Curr Sci. 2016; 111:1759–1764.

8. Sarewitz D. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature. 2016; 533:147. PMID: 27172010.

9. Thakuria B, Saikia P. Predatory publisher and impact factor: the murky landscape of scholastic publication. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2016; 34:392–393. PMID: 27514972.

10. de Jong G. Reasons to temper enthusiasm about open access nursing journals. Contemp Nurse. Forthcoming. 2016.

11. Baydik OD, Gasparyan AY. How to act when research misconduct is not detected by software but revealed by the author of the plagiarized article. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:1508–1510. PMID: 27550475.

12. Dhulkhed VK, Kurdi MS, Dhulkhed PV, Ramaswamy AH. Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: can we improve the criteria? Indian J Anaesth. 2016; 60:796–800. PMID: 27942051.

13. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Open access: changing global science publishing. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:403–406. PMID: 23986284.

14. Matheka DM, Nderitu J, Mutonga D, Otiti MI, Siegel K, Demaio AR. Open access: academic publishing and its implications for knowledge equity in Kenya. Global Health. 2014; 10:26. PMID: 24716579.

15. Duncan FE, Derman B, Woodruff TK. A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31:511–520. PMID: 24652516.

16. Abadal E. Gold or green: the debate on open access policies. Int Microbiol. 2013; 16:199–203. PMID: 24568035.

17. Škorić L, Vrkić D, Petrak J. Current state of open access to journal publications from the University of Zagreb School of Medicine. Croat Med J. 2016; 57:71–76. PMID: 26935617.

18. Seo JW, Chung H, Yun J, Park JY, Park E, Ahn Y. Usage trends of open access and local journals: a Korean case study. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0155843. PMID: 27195948.

19. Sabharwal S, Patel N, Johal K. Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop. 2014; 38:1297–1302. PMID: 24384939.

20. Yammine K. Open access of evidence-based publications: the case of the orthopedic and musculoskeletal literature. J Evid Based Med. 2015; 8:181–184. PMID: 26779696.

21. Kale NS, Haug K, Conesa P, Jayseelan K, Moreno P, Rocca-Serra P, Nainala VC, Spicer RA, Williams M, Li X, et al. MetaboLights: an open-access database repository for metabolomics data. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2016; 53:14.13.1–14.13.18.

22. Fredericks S. Questioning the efficacy of ‘gold’ open access to published articles. Nurse Res. 2015; 22:8–10.

23. Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015; 13:230. PMID: 26423063.

24. Scholarly Open Access. Beall's list: potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers [Internet]. accessed on 21 February 2017. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/.

25. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342:60–65. PMID: 24092725.

26. Beall J. Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:1511–1513. PMID: 27550476.

27. Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. The pressure to publish more and the scope of predatory publishing activities. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:1874–1878. PMID: 27822923.

28. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F. Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Forthcoming. 2017.

29. Oermann MH, Conklin JL, Nicoll LH, Chinn PL, Ashton KS, Edie AH, Amarasekara S, Budinger SC. Study of predatory open access nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016; 48:624–632. PMID: 27706886.

30. Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit…. BMC Med. 2015; 13:180. PMID: 26239633.

31. Mašić I, Begić E, Donev DM, Gajović S, Gasparyan AY, Jakovljević M, Milošević DB, Sinanović O, Sokolović Š, Uzunović S, et al. Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croat Med J. 2016; 57:527–529. PMID: 28051276.

32. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A scopus-based analysis of publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1915–1919. PMID: 26713071.

33. Gurov AN, Goncharova YG, Bubyakin GB. Open access to scientific knowledge: Its state, problems, and prospects of development. Sci Tech Inf Process. 2016; 43:88–94.

34. Cornell A, Bushman B, Womack K. Analysis of journals that did not meet selection criteria for inclusion in the National Library of Medicine collection but have manuscripts in PubMed Central. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011; 99:168–170. PMID: 21464857.

35. Murlimanju BV, Prabhu LV, Prameela MD, Pai MM, Saralaya VV. What is indexing? Indian J Orthop. 2016; 50:577–578. PMID: 27746504.

36. Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín JM, Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: analysis of Beall’s list. Prof Inf. 2016; 25:730–737.

37. Harvey HB, Weinstein DF. Predatory publishing: an emerging threat to the medical literature. Acad Med. 2017; 92:150–151. PMID: 28121685.

38. Oransky I, Marcus A. A famed journal blacklist is dead. Long live a blacklist! [Internet]. accessed on 21 February 2017. Available at https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/27/journal-predatory-blacklist/.

39. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals [Internet]. accessed on 21 February 2017. Available at http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals.