Jump to content

Predatory publishing: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→History and Beall's List: initial doubts raised already in 2009
→History and Beall's List: interesting: how concerns for spamming practices from the black sheep ushered the creation of the OASPA
Line 21: Line 21:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
Doubts about honesty and [[scams]] in open access journals have been raised already in 2009.<ref>Suber, Peter. "Ten challenges for open-access journals", ''SPARC Open Access Newsletter'', October 2, 2009. [http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4316131]</ref>
Doubts about honesty and [[scams]] in open access journals have been raised already in 2009.<ref>Suber, Peter. "Ten challenges for open-access journals", ''SPARC Open Access Newsletter'', October 2, 2009. [http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4316131]</ref>
Indeed, concerns for [[spamming]] practices from the "[[black sheep]] among open access journals and publishers" ushered then leading open access publishers to create the [[Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association]] in 2008.<ref>Eysenbach, Gunther. Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Originally posted 2008-03-08, updated (postscript added) 2008-04-21, 2008-04-23, 2008-06-03. [http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.ca/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html]. Accessed: 2008-06-03. (Archived by WebCite at [http://www.webcitation.org/5YIqkyRE4])</ref>


Beall published his first list of predatory publishers in 2010.<ref name=Butler /> In August 2012 he posted his criteria for evaluating publishers,<ref name=Butler /> with the second edition posted on December 1 the same year.<ref name=BeallCriteria2ndEd>{{cite web |last1=Beall |first1=Jeffrey |title=Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ |website=Scholarly Open Access |date=December 1, 2012}}</ref> In February 2013 he added a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion in the list.<ref name=Butler />
Beall published his first list of predatory publishers in 2010.<ref name=Butler /> In August 2012 he posted his criteria for evaluating publishers,<ref name=Butler /> with the second edition posted on December 1 the same year.<ref name=BeallCriteria2ndEd>{{cite web |last1=Beall |first1=Jeffrey |title=Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ |website=Scholarly Open Access |date=December 1, 2012}}</ref> In February 2013 he added a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion in the list.<ref name=Butler />

Revision as of 04:34, 29 December 2014

In academic publishing, predatory open access publishing describes an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). "Beall's List", a regularly-updated report by Jeffrey Beall, sets forth criteria for categorizing predatory publications and lists publishers and independent journals that meet those criteria.[1]

History and Beall's List

The term "predatory open access" was conceived by University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall. After noticing a large number of emails inviting him to submit articles or join the editorial board of previously unknown journals, he began researching open-access publishers and created Beall's List of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers.[2] Beall has also written on this topic in The Charleston Advisor,[1] in Nature,[3] and in Learned Publishing.[4]

Preceding Beall's efforts was the well-known case of a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense submitted by a Cornell graduate student, Phil Davis, which was accepted (but withdrawn by the author) for a fee by one of the open-access publishers now included on Beall's List (Bentham Open).[5] Doubts about honesty and scams in open access journals have been raised already in 2009.[6] Indeed, concerns for spamming practices from the "black sheep among open access journals and publishers" ushered then leading open access publishers to create the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in 2008.[7]

Beall published his first list of predatory publishers in 2010.[2] In August 2012 he posted his criteria for evaluating publishers,[2] with the second edition posted on December 1 the same year.[8] In February 2013 he added a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion in the list.[2]

Characteristics of predatory publishing

Complaints that are associated with predatory open-access publishing include

  • Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control,[9] including hoax and nonsensical papers.[5][10][11]
  • Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted.[9]
  • Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards.[2]
  • Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission,[1][12] and not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards.[1][13]
  • Appointing fake academics to editorial boards.[14]
  • Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals.[13]
  • Misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as a false location.[1]
  • Improper use of ISSNs.[1]
  • Fake impact factors[15][16]

Reception

In 2013, Nature reported that Beall's list and web site are "widely read by librarians, researchers and open-access advocates, many of whom applaud his efforts to reveal shady publishing practices."[2] Others have raised doubts that "Whether it's fair to classify all these journals and publishers as 'predatory' is an open question — several shades of gray may be distinguishable."[17] There have been attempts to verify Beall's list independently.[18] More transparent peer review has been advocated to combat predatory journals.[19] Others have argued instead that the discussion on predatory journals should not be turned "into a debate over the shortcomings of peer review – it is nothing of the sort. It is about fraud, deception and irresponsibility..."[20]

As a result of Beall's list and also the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? investigation, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) has tightened up its inclusion criteria, with the purpose of serving as a whitelist, very much like Beall's has been a blacklist.[21] The investigation found that "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control."[22]

Beall has been threatened with a lawsuit by a Canadian publisher that appears on the list and he reports that he has been the subject of online harassment for his work on the subject. His list has been criticized[citation needed] by some organizations which represent open-access publishers for relying heavily for analysis of publishers' web sites, not engaging directly with publishers, and including newly founded but legitimate journals. Beall has responded to these complaints by posting the criteria he uses to generate the list, as well as instituting an anonymous three-person review body to which publishers can appeal to be removed from the list.[2] For example, a 2010 re-evaluation resulted in some journals being removed from Beall's list.[23]

One librarian wrote that Beall's list "attempts a binary division of this complex gold rush: the good and the bad. Yet many of the criteria used are either impossible to quantify..., or can be found to apply as often to established OA journals as to the new entrants in this area... Some of the criteria seem to make First World assumptions that aren't valid worldwide."[24] Others find that it is wrong for a single person to maintain such a list.[25]

The list is used as an authoritative source by South Africa's Department of Higher Education and Training in maintaining its list of accredited journals: articles published in those journals will determine funding levels for their authors; however, journals identified as predatory will be removed from this list.[26] In addition, ProQuest is reviewing all journals on Beall's list and has started removing them from the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences.[26]

In an effort to "set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones," principles of transparency and best practice have been identified and issued collectively by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors.[27]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Elliott, Carl (June 5, 2012). "On Predatory Publishers: a Q&A With Jeffrey Beall". Brainstorm. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Butler, Declan (March 27, 2013). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature. 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. PMID 23538810.
  3. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/489179a, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/489179a instead.
  4. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1087/20130203, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1087/20130203 instead.
  5. ^ a b Basken, Paul (June 10, 2009). "Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  6. ^ Suber, Peter. "Ten challenges for open-access journals", SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 2009. [1]
  7. ^ Eysenbach, Gunther. Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Originally posted 2008-03-08, updated (postscript added) 2008-04-21, 2008-04-23, 2008-06-03. [2]. Accessed: 2008-06-03. (Archived by WebCite at [3])
  8. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (December 1, 2012). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition)". Scholarly Open Access.
  9. ^ a b Stratford, Michael (March 4, 2012). "'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish". The Chronicle of Higher Education. (subscription required)
  10. ^ Gilbert, Natasha (June 15, 2009). "Editor will quit over hoax paper". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.571.
  11. ^ Safi, Michael (November 25, 2014), "Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list", The Guardian.
  12. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (August 1, 2012). "Predatory Publishing". The Scientist.
  13. ^ a b Kolata, Gina (April 7, 2013). "For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia". The New York Times.
  14. ^ Neumann, Ralf (February 2, 2012). ""Junk Journals" und die "Peter-Panne"". Laborjournal.
  15. ^ Jeffrey Beall. "Bogus New Impact Factor Appears". Scholarly Open Access.
  16. ^ Mehrdad Jalalian, Hamidreza Mahboobi (2013). "New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations" (PDF). Electronic Physician. 5 (3): 685–686.
  17. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1056/NEJMp1214750, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1056/NEJMp1214750 instead.
  18. ^ Walt Crawford, (July 2014), "Journals, 'Journals' and Wannabes: Investigating The List", Cites & Insights, 14:7, ISSN 1534-0937
  19. ^ "Is this peer reviewed? Predatory journals and the transparency of peer review".
  20. ^ . doi:10.1177/0141076814548526. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  21. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/512017a, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/512017a instead.
  22. ^ Bohannon, J (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. PMID 24092725.
  23. ^ Butler, Declan (2013). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature. 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. PMID 23538810.
  24. ^ "Predatory Publishers - Peer to Peer Review". Library Journal.
  25. ^ "Beall's criticism of MDPI lacks evidence and is irresponsible".
  26. ^ a b "Accredited Journals". Stellenbosch University.
  27. ^ Committee on Publication Ethics, Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predatory_publishing&oldid=640042367"