To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Beall's list.
Journal articles on the topic 'Beall's list'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Beall's list.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Pahor, Dušica. "Predatory journals / Plenilske revije." Acta Medico-Biotechnica 9, no. 1 (2021): 7–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.18690/actabiomed.126.
Full textAbstract:
The name “predatory open access” was first used by Jeffrey Beall, researcher and librarian at the University of Colorado at Denver, to describe journals for profits and not for the promotion of scientific data. In 2010, he published the first list of predatory publishers. Beall's list includes potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Predatory practice includes not only journals, but also monographs, conferences and conference proceedings (1).
2
Kakamad, Fahmi H., Berun A. Abdalla, Hiwa O. Abdullah, et al. "Lists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinement." European Science Editing 50 (May 17, 2024): e118119. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e118119.
Full textAbstract:
Although predatory publishers are increasingly recognized, universally accepted criteria for defining predatory journals are lacking. These journals challenge the scholarly community by blurring the line between legitimate and questionable publishing practices. Several lists and reports of predatory journals have been published, which offer valuable insights; however, they are not devoid of criticism. Beall's list, although criticized for its inclusion criteria, is currently managed anony-mously and updated infrequently. Cabells' list uses an extensive array of inclusion criteria, some of which are similar to those used in Beall's list. Several of these cri-teria are redundant and fail to detect predatory practices, and using all of them in evaluating a journal is seldom practicable. Kscien's list has emerged as a promising alternative for identifying predatory publishers or journals. However, it requires refinement, potentially through creating a distinct list supported by unequivocal evidence, such as accepting a fake manuscript (ascertained through a sting opera-tion). The present review seeks to catalyze research on identifying predatory jour-nals and publishers by comparing existing lists and suggesting new techniques for detecting predatory practices.
3
Strielkowski, Wadim. "Predatory journals: Beall's List is missed." Nature 544, no. 7651 (2017): 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/544416b.
Full text
4
Banerjee, Amitav. "Beall's list vanishes into the blue… what next?" Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil University 10, no. 3 (2017): 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_21_17.
Full text
5
Strielkowski, Wadim. "Setting New Publishing Standards after the Beall's List." International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 9, no. 2 (2018): 108–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2018.1314.
Full text
6
Watson, Roger. "Beall's list of predatory open access journals: RIP." Nursing Open 4, no. 2 (2017): 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nop2.78.
Full text
7
Strielkowski, Wadim. "Predatory Publishing: What Are the Alternatives to Beall's List?" American Journal of Medicine 131, no. 4 (2018): 333–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054.
Full text
8
Mimouni, Michael, Eyal Braun, Francis B. Mimouni, Daniel Mimouni, and Eytan Z. Blumenthal. "Beall's List Removed: What Stands Between Us and Open Access Predators?" American Journal of Medicine 130, no. 8 (2017): e371-e372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.040.
Full text
9
Schlomi, Mattan, Suzy Myers Joy, and Risa Shimizu Joy. "Sedation and Twilight Anesthesia Induced by Ascofregata Purin Song." American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research 6, no. 4 (2019): 316–18. https://doi.org/10.34297/AJBSR.2019.06.001051.
Full textAbstract:
The "American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research" is, despite its appearances, a predatory journal that does not practice peer review. They will accept any paper submitted to them, and charge over US$1000 for publication charges. As evidence, here is a paper about the Pokémon "Jigglypuff" that repeatedly drops hits about its own, fictional nature, yet failed to raise any flags during the 'review' stage and was accepted and published within days of submission. Some of the emails sent by the publisher are attached as well.
10
KC, Sajan, Surendra Pariyar, and Anisha Sapkota. "Refining Nepal's butterfly records: self-corrections and notes on previously recorded Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera) species." Journal of Insect Biodiversity and Systematics 11, no. 2 (2025): 363–77. https://doi.org/10.61186/jibs.11.2.363.
Full textAbstract:
Accurate documentation and identification of species, along with publishing findings in peer-reviewed sources, are essential for enhancing biodiversity knowledge and guiding conservation efforts effectively. In this paper, we present corrections to records of butterfly species we previously documented from Nepal, updating their identifications based on new information. The records of three misidentified species are corrected: <em>Caltoris sirius sirius </em>(Evans, 1926), <em>Catochrysops panormus exiguus</em> (Distant, 1886), and <em>Pelopidas conjuncta narooa </em>Moore, 1878. Additionally, we have revalidated the records for four species: <em>Caltoris bromus bromus </em>(Leech, 1894), <em>Celaenorrhinus nigricans nigricans </em>(de Nicéville, 1885), <em>Nacaduba berenice plumbeomicans </em>(Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881),<em> Pantoporia sandaka davidsoni </em>Eliot, 1969, and one form, <em>Danaus chrysippus chrysippus</em> (Linnaeus, 1758) f. <em>alcippoides</em> (Moore, 1883), which were previously reported in journals listed on Beall's list of potential predatory journals, to ensure their authenticity. Our goal is to provide a reliable, corrected, and authoritative reference source for these records, enhancing the accuracy of butterfly species documentation in Nepal.
11
Walters, William H. "The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers and journals." Journal of Academic Librarianship 48, no. 1 (2022): 102484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102484.
Full text
12
Moed, Henk F., Carmen Lopez‐Illescas, Vicente P. Guerrero‐Bote, and Felix Moya‐Anegon. "Journals in Beall's list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers." Learned Publishing 35, no. 2 (2021): 130–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1428.
Full text
13
Haron, Nor Hafiza, Nor Hafiza Abd Samad, Anis Juanita Mohd Zainudin, Ramlan Mahmod, and Fatimah Bibi Hamzah. "Automatic Detection System of Open Access Predatory Journals: A Unique Application." Journal of Advanced Research in Computing and Applications 33, no. 1 (2024): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.37934/arca.33.1.16.
Full textAbstract:
With the proliferation of Open Access journals and the shift to online publishing, academic publishing has changed dramatically. The number of journals has expanded dramatically as the publishing business has evolved. There are currently more journals than ever before where authors can publish their work. With the numerous advantages of Open Access publication for both writers and readers, credible publishers are currently launching hundreds of new Open Access journals. However, as a result of their increased popularity, less respectable journals have emerged, abusing the author-pay model and jeopardizing the integrity of published research. Some journals, for example, may not feel obligated to follow the principles of good scientific practice, preferring to exploit the academic publication market only as a commercial model for the publishers. Authors are charged publication fees or article processing charges (APCs) by these publications, which are commonly referred to as "predatory journals," but they do not conduct peer reviews or other forms of quality control. The publication of research findings in such publications is not only detrimental to the writers involved but also undermines public trust in scientific research. As a result, this research aims to develop a system for detecting predatory journals which will guide researchers in evaluating a journal or publisher. The application will help users to identify predatory publications, as well as how to determine whether or not a journal is legitimate by checking databases such as SCOPUS. To accomplish the goal of this study, Beall's List and other lists of predatory publishers will be employed.
14
Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles. "Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)." Research Evaluation 30, no. 3 (2021): 405–19. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13521663.
Full textAbstract:
(Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) once included on Beall's list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all singled them out as predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals.
15
Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles. "Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)." Research Evaluation 30, no. 3 (2021): 405–19. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13521663.
Full textAbstract:
(Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) once included on Beall's list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all singled them out as predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals.
16
Zaccaron, Rafael, Vítor Pluceno Behnck, and Jeffrey Beall. "I don't think we should "combat" predatory publishers: An interview with Jeffrey Beall." Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação 29 (March 6, 2024): 01–07. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2024.e98618.
Full textAbstract:
Beall’s List was discontinued in January 2017. It catalogued potential predatory publishers, known for publishing non-peer-reviewed open access articles with profit reasons. This leads to a pollution of the academic record with poorly reviewed pseudo-scientific data, which is harmful for science in general. In this interview, Beall discusses some aspects and impacts of predatory publishing, as well as the dilemma of open-access research and what different entities can do to diminish the influence of predatory journals.
17
Shankar, Nikhil Gauri, Jashan Selvakumar, Jiann Lin Loo, et al. "What can be found in the spam folder? a self-study from junior researchers in psychiatry." BJPsych Open 7, S1 (2021): S250—S251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.671.
Full textAbstract:
AimsThriving on the pressure of “publish or perish” experienced by academicians, the industry of predatory publishers with dubious quality has mushroomed and gained their notoriety. The battle of uncovering predatory publishers, including Beall's list, has proven to be tough given the huge monetary gain generated by the predatory publishers. It may be difficult for an inexperienced junior researcher to identify those predatory publishers’ soliciting emails, which may disguise as a reputable journal's article-commissioning process. To date, there is a limited systematic approach to identify such emails. Hence, this research is aimed to describe the common features of soliciting emails from publishers which appeared to be predatory.MethodThis self-study involved reviewing the content of emails in the spam folder of authors, a team of junior researchers in psychiatry, for a month. Emails included in this study were soliciting emails relevant to publications and the following were reviewed: types of solicitation, sentences used, strategies used, and information available in the public domain of their webpages. Informative types of emails were excluded.ResultThe solicitation could include: 1) request for a manuscript to be published a journal article, 2) request for a thesis to be published as a book, 3) request to write for a book chapter, 4) invitation to be an editorial member or a reviewer with the offer of free publishing, 5) invitation to be a speaker for a conference, and 6) proofreading services. The publisher may cite a published article of the author from another journal, which was the source where they identified the author's email. Common strategies used for solicitation included: 1) promising a fast-tracked and guaranteed publication, 2) using compliments that appeared to be inappropriate, 3) repetitive emails, and 4) using argumentum ad passiones to induce guilt. The common features of the webpages of those publishers included: 1) open access publishing as the only option, 2) extensive list of indexing services excluding well-established indexing agencies, and 3) the publisher has a huge collection of journals in different disciplines.ConclusionIt is hoped that these findings will help junior researchers in psychiatry to stay vigilant to avoid falling into the trap of predatory publishers, which may result in financial loss and loss of work to plagiarism. Total eradication of those predatory soliciting emails is unlikely despite the advancement of spam filtering technology, which necessitates a more united effort from different stakeholders to come out with a probable solution.
18
Richtig, Georg, Marina Berger, Max Koeller, et al. "Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall’s list by the scientific community–A bibliometric big data study." PLOS ONE 18, no. 7 (2023): e0287547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287547.
Full textAbstract:
Beall’s list is widely used to identify potentially predatory journals. With this study, we aim to investigate the impact of Beall’s list on the perception of listed journals as well as on the publication and citation behavior of the scientific community. We performed comprehensive bibliometric analyses of data extracted from the ISSN database, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Crossref, Scopus and Web of Science. Citation analysis was performed by data extracted from the Crossref Cited-by database. At the time of analysis, Beall’s list consisted of 1,289 standalone journals and 1,162 publishers, which corresponds to 21,735 individual journals. Of these, 3,206 (38.8%) were located in the United States, 2,484 in India (30.0%), and 585 in United Kingdom (7.1%). The majority of journals were listed in the ISSN database (n = 8,266), Crossref (n = 5,155), PubMed (n = 1,139), Scopus (n = 570), DOAJ (n = 224), PMC (n = 135) or Web of Science (n = 50). The number of articles published by journals on Beall’s list as well as on the DOAJ continuously increased from 2011 to 2017. In 2018, the number of articles published by journals on Beall’s list decreased. Journals on Beall’s list were more often cited when listed in Web of Science (CI 95% 5.5 to 21.5; OR = 10.7) and PMC (CI 95% 6.3 to 14.1; OR = 9.4). It seems that the importance of Beall’s list for the scientific community is overestimated. In contrast, journals are more likely to be selected for publication or citation when indexed by commonly used and renowned databases. Thus, the providers of these databases must be aware of their impact and verify that good publication practice standards are being applied by the journals listed.
19
Abdulla, Aziz. "Friends of Open Access." TJES Vol.27 No.3 (2020) 27, no. 3 (2020): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.25130/tjes.27.3.pb1.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you https://scholarlyoa.net I looked at the site above, and on the allegations, he makes against Beall Jeffrey I would like to clarify the following 1-It seems that the site is not official, and those who are responsible for it are unknown and they call themselves Friends of Open Access or a group of librarians did not say, publishers or university professors, they did not mention any name or institution sponsoring the site. 2-I read most of their claims about Beall Jaffrey’s criteria, and it is incorrect. The criteria of Beall Jeffrey consist of about 40 items, and all of them are logical. And through it, the predatory journal is published quickly, without evaluation, and without classifying the article in international databases. 3-It focuses on the standard of publishing fees only, which is one of the criteria and does not mean that every journal that asks for fees is a predatory journal. 4-The site uses the same name as the Beall list but has a .net extension instead of .com, It violates publishing ethics and exploits the reputation of the well-known and well-known website. 5-Below are the links to Beall Jeffrey scientific pages, which shows the credibility of his articles published in reputable international journals. He has more than 1000 citations in the Scopus database and more than 3000 total citations in all journals –https://scholar.google.com.my/citations?hl=ar&user=EtHsEcMAAAAJ –https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=8869689200 6-Beall’s main website was suspended in 2017, there are many websites now that rely on Beall Jeffrey’s criteria, but most of them are unofficial, and it may demand sums from journals to be removed from the list. 7-This site claims the existence of lawsuits against Bell Jefri and does not provide any evidence for that.
20
Beall, Jeffrey. "Response to “Beyond Beall’s List”." College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 6 (2015): 340–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.6.9334.
Full text
21
Demir, Selcuk Besir. "Scholarly databases under scrutiny." Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52, no. 1 (2018): 150–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000618784159.
Full textAbstract:
The study aims to investigate whether indices (e.g. SSCI/ SCI/AHCI/ESCI, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, HW Wilson, ERIC) include potentially fake journals (PFJs) identified earlier in Beall’s list. Fourteen indices were examined to find out if PFJs are indexed by indices. The study also aims to provide detailed data regarding which of these indices include such PFJs along with information about the number of issues and articles published per year and publication fees charged by PFJs indexed by ordinary indices. The universe of the PFJs is composed of those listed in the Beall list ( n=2708), and the study aimed to reach all the universe instead of being content with a sample from it. The results of the study indicated that one PFJ was indexed by SCI and two were indexed by ESCI. In addition, it was found that 53 PFJs were indexed by SCOPUS, 12 by ERIC and six by MEDLİNE. It was revealed that PFJs indexed by indices have significantly higher numbers of articles published annually and charge significantly higher fees compared to PFJs that are not indexed in such indices.
22
Daught, Gary. "Religious Studies Journals in Beall’s List." Theological Librarianship 10, no. 1 (2017): 33–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.31046/tl.v10i1.481.
Full text
23
Berger, Monica, and Jill Cirasella. "Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers." College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 3 (2015): 132–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277.
Full text
24
Buschman, John. "A Political Sociology of the Beall’s List Affair." Library Quarterly 90, no. 3 (2020): 298–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/708959.
Full text
25
Koirala, Sanjib, Bibek Raj Parajuli, Unnayan Baskota, et al. "How to find a predatory journal: prevent yourself from getting scammed." Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences 9, no. 1 (2022): 118–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jpahs.v9i1.44307.
Full textAbstract:
Jaffrey Beall defined predatory journals and created Beall’s list of predatory journals. Predatory journals exploit the open-access model - they are dishonest and lack transparency. Predatory journals fully developed in the years 2013 and 2014. Developing countries like South Asian and African countries with emerging research fields have the majority of authors published in predatory journals. Predatory journals are even found in reputed databases like PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE). There are numerous fake profiles in Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google; although they have been timely deleting such fake profiles. Journals must use institutional email addresses to maintain professionalism and quality. Focusing on quantity over quality of research papers, and lack of proper knowledge about predatory journals make new researchers victimized by such journals. This paper aims to provide proper knowledge about predatory journals and deliver useful tips to prevent genuine researchers from getting victimized by such journals. This paper also intends to provide thorough knowledge about fake social media accounts and email addresses used by such journals, and the importance of institutional email addresses.
26
Ibba, Simona, Filippo Eros Pani, John Gregory Stockton, Giulio Barabino, Michele Marchesi, and Danilo Tigano. "Incidence of predatory journals in computer science literature." Library Review 66, no. 6/7 (2017): 505–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/lr-12-2016-0108.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose One of the main tasks of a researcher is to properly communicate the results he obtained. The choice of the journal in which to publish the work is therefore very important. However, not all journals have suitable characteristics for a correct dissemination of scientific knowledge. Some publishers turn out to be unreliable and, against a payment, they publish whatever researchers propose. The authors call “predatory journals” these untrustworthy journals. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the incidence of predatory journals in computer science literature and present a tool that was developed for this purpose. Design/methodology/approach The authors focused their attention on editors, universities and publishers that are involved in this kind of publishing process. The starting point of their research is the list of scholarly open-access publishers and open-access stand-alone journals created by Jeffrey Beall. Specifically, they analysed the presence of predatory journals in the search results obtained from Google Scholar in the engineering and computer science fields. They also studied the change over time of such incidence in the articles published between 2011 and 2015. Findings The analysis shows that the phenomenon of predatory journals somehow decreased in 2015, probably due to a greater awareness of the risks related to the reputation of the authors. Originality/value We focused on computer science field, using a specific sample of queries. We developed a software to automatically make queries to the search engine, and to detect predatory journals, using Beall’s list.
27
McKenzie, Madeleine, Duncan Nickerson, and Chad G. Ball. "Predatory publishing solicitation: a review of a single surgeon’s inbox and implications for information technology resources at an organizational level." Canadian Journal of Surgery 64, no. 3 (2021): E351—E357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.003020.
Full textAbstract:
Over a 6-month period, roughly one-third of emails received in a single surgeon’s email inbox were predatory in nature (i.e., soliciting material for nonexistent journals or conferences). While existing databases (e.g., Beall’s list and The CalTech Library list of questionable conferences) catalogue many fraudulent senders, the list is ever-expanding. The overall cost to health care organizations in terms of wasted bandwidth and financial diversion is extensive, as is confusion for trainees and colleagues. For the sake of fiscal responsibility and the maintenance of scholarly standards, it is incumbent upon organizational information technology departments to continually refine strategies to reduce this adverse impact.
28
Somoza-Fernández, Marta, Josep-Manuel Rodríguez-Gairín, and Cristóbal Urbano. "Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list." El Profesional de la Información 25, no. 5 (2016): 730. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03.
Full text
29
Kimotho, Stephen Gichuhi. "The storm around Beall’s List: a review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers." African Research Review 13, no. 2 (2019): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1.
Full text
30
da Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira. "Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist." Open Information Science 6, no. 1 (2022): 136–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0136.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract After the closure of Jeffrey Beall’s open access “predatory” publishing blacklists in mid-January of 2017, a new “predatory publishing” blacklist emerged in 2018, Dolos list. This blacklist, curated by “Professor Alexandre Georges”, became defunct sometime in late 2020 or early 2021 based on publicly available clues. In this paper, several aspects of this blacklist, as retrieved from the Internet Archive and ResearchGate, were examined, including the profile of “Alexandre Georges”. The veracity of this individual’s identity is questioned. Discussion is provided about the citation, use and promotion of Dolos list in the literature and on websites as a solution and/or resource pertaining to “predatory” publishing. Given the questionable nature of the now-defunct Dolos blacklist website, and the uncertainty regarding the veracity of its curator’s identity, the author holds the opinion that sites that continue to promote the Dolos list may also be spreading inaccurate information (i.e., misinformation) to academics.
31
Wadim, Strielkowski, Gryshova Inna, and Shcherbata Maryna. "PREDATORY PUBLISHING AND BEALL’S LIST: LESSONS FOR THE COUNTRIES ADAPTING NOVEL RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA." Science and Education 23, no. 8 (2017): 39–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2017-8-5.
Full text
32
Chen, Xiaotian. "Beall’s List and Cabell’s Blacklist: A Comparison of Two Lists of Predatory OA Journals." Serials Review 45, no. 4 (2019): 219–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2019.1694810.
Full text
33
Shrestha, Jiban. "Authors beware! Publishing in predatory journals is harmful." Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3, no. 2 (2020): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i2.32293.
Full textAbstract:
Predatory publishing is now rapidly growing and becoming a global challenge to scientific communities. Predatory publications pose a danger that could undermine the quality, integrity, and reliability of published scientific research works. They harm the career of those authors who published on them. The researchers should be aware of the quality of journals while publishing their research results. In this review, we briefly summarize the ways to spot out predatory publications, their harmful effects, and strategies to stop them. Authors should know the lists of predatory journals/publishers which are available on Beall’s list on the internet. Predatory journals take advantage of authors by asking them to publish for a fee without providing peer-review or editing services. The young and inexperienced authors are easy victims of predatory publications. The predatory publications are worthless, just a waste of time, resources, money, and efforts. The objective of this review paper was to create awareness about predatory journals among researchers and scholars.
34
Richtig, Georg, Marina Berger, Max Koeller, et al. "Correction: Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall’s list by the scientific community–A bibliometric big data study." PLOS ONE 19, no. 1 (2024): e0296582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296582.
Full text
35
De Jager, P., F. De Kock, and P. Van der Spuy. "Do not feed the predators." South African Journal of Business Management 48, no. 3 (2017): 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v48i3.34.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigates the prevalence and characteristics of papers published in popular predatory journals by South African academics in economic and management sciences. Our aim is to raise awareness and to deepen understanding of the predatory publishing phenomenon. We collected 728 recent (2013 to mid-2016) articles with South African authors in five popular in the field journals classified as ‘potential, possible, or probable predatory’ according to Beall’s list. Our data shows that publishing in these predatory journals is widespread across authors and universities. However, the data also shows that most of the authors only published once in these journals, suggesting that they perhaps mistakenly perceived the journals as being legitimate research outlets. We found evidence of low-quality publishing by the journals in our data, consistent with deficient peer review and copy editing processes. Thus, low-quality publishing was evident from spelling and grammar mistakes in the titles of articles, publishing the same paper twice in the same journal, so-called ‘salami slicing’, and the publishing of an article already published in another journal.
36
Khokhlov, A. N., and G. V. Morgunova. "Herbivore journals vs predatory journals – the battle is already lost, what’s next?" Science Editor and Publisher 7, no. 1 (2022): 40–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-18.
Full textAbstract:
The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.
37
Kulczycki, Emanuel, Marek Hołowiecki, Zehra Taşkın, and Franciszek Krawczyk. "Drapieżne czasopisma są legitymizowane przez artykuły w czasopismach z impact factor." Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 83, no. 2 (2021): 59–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2021.83.2.5.
Full textAbstract:
Jednym z problemów współczesnego środowiska akademickiego jest zrozumienie różnic pomiędzy uznanymi czasopismami naukowymi a tzw. czasopismami drapieżnymi. Podczas gdy osoby kształtujące politykę naukową i menedżerowie nauki uważają czasopisma indeksowane w popularnych indeksach cytowań, takich jak Web of Science czy Scopus, za rzetelne, to do identyfikacji drapieżnych czasopism używają dwóch czarnych list (tzw. lista Bealla i lista Cabell’s), z których jedna nie jest aktualizowana od kilku lat. Głównym celem naszego artykułu jest pokazanie, jak czasopisma uznane za rzetelne podnoszą widoczność artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach znajdujących się na czarnych listach. W tym celu przebadaliśmy 65 czasopism z nauk społecznych znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 2338 czasopism indeksowanych przez Web of Science, które cytowały te czasopisma. Przeanalizowaliśmy 3234 artykuły z czasopism znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 5964 artykuły (6750 cytowań) z czasopism indeksowanych w Web of Science. Nasze wyniki pokazują, że 13% artykułów z czarnych list było cytowanych przez czasopisma z Web of Science, a 37% cytowań pochodziło z czasopism z impact factor. Okazuje się, że nie ma istotnej zależności między impact factor a liczbą cytowań w czasopismach z czarnej listy, mimo że jest on jest wykorzystywany przez osoby kształtujące politykę naukową do określania poziomu czasopism. Z drugiej strony należy wziąć pod uwagę jako czynnik wyjaśniający kraj i praktyki autocytowania stosowane w czasopismach.
38
Shrestha, Jiban, Subash Subedi, Krishna P. Timsina, and Mahendra P. Tripathi. "Risk of publication in worthless journals." Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 1, no. 1 (2018): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/janr.v1i1.22217.
Full textAbstract:
Implementing research and publishing results is a crucial for a professional development, scientific communication and collaboration of any academicians, scholars, and researchers in science around the world. The timely dissemination of knowledge and scientific information in the global scientific community helps the development of science and worldwide recognition. The researchers working on scientific community cannot appreciate the value of evidence generated without publishing their work in right and quality journals. Therefore, authors should be careful about predatory or fake journals/publishers for communicating their scientific works. The objective of this study is to raise awareness on predatory or fake publishers/journals and of their dishonest publishing practices. In general, the predatory journal publishes without peer review and true editorial board, often publish mediocre or even worthless papers on charging high publication cost, citing fake and non-existing impact factors and mostly focused on private business motives. On the other hand, publishing in a high impact quality journals undoubtedly enhances the future career prospects, communication ability of authors and deliver concise research messages in the scientific field. Researcher of various disciplines and academic experience should aware with the lists of predatory journals/publishers which are available on Beall’s list in internet before publishing any research articles. Therefore, publishing in predatory/fake journals not only spoil or degrade academic reputations but also waste the time, resources and research message too.
39
Nejadghanbar, Hassan, and Guangwei Hu. "Predatory and Legitimate Open Access Journals in Language and Linguistics: Where do they Part Ways?" Journal of Scholarly Publishing 53, no. 4 (2022): 224–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0021.
Full textAbstract:
This study aimed to identify editorial features that can distinguish predatory and legitimate open access journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. Fifty-six journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and an equal number of journals from Beall’s updated list of potential predatory journals (PPJs) were selected for a close examination. Analyses showed that these two groups of journals differed markedly in a large number of editorial features: certain publication frequencies, contact address and contact information, mean number of articles published per year, specialized focus, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editor(s)-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editorial board members, availability of the guide for authors and aims/scope sections, an APC for open access, mean APC, claimed indexation by DOAJ, provision of ethical guidelines and publishing policies, and presence of DOIs. Nevertheless, they did not differ significantly with regard to mean years of editorial activity, mention of average peer review time, mention of acceptance rate, mean number of editorial board members, mean number of editors, listing of editorial boards, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/ERIC/Scopus/Web of Science, COPE membership, and availability of ISSNs. These findings point to distinguishing editorial features that language and linguistics scholars need to consider when they look for legitimate open access journals to disseminate their research.
40
Tsigaris, Panagiotis, and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva. "Did the Research Faculty at a Small Canadian Business School Publish in “Predatory” Venues? This Depends on the Publishing Blacklist." Publications 7, no. 2 (2019): 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications7020035.
Full textAbstract:
The first ever quantitative paper to claim that papers published in so-called “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers were financially remunerated emerged from Canada. That study, published in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing (University of Toronto Press) in 2017 by Derek Pyne at Thompson Rivers University, garnered wide public and media attention, even by renowned news outlets such as The New York Times and The Economist. Pyne claimed to have found that most of the human subjects of his study had published in “predatory” OA journals, or in OA journals published by “predatory” OA publishers, as classified by Jeffrey Beall. In this paper, we compare the so-called “predatory” publications referred to in Pyne’s study with Walt Crawford’s gray open access (grayOA) list, as well as with Cabell’s blacklist, which was introduced in 2017. Using Cabell’s blacklist and Crawford’s grayOA list, we found that approximately 2% of the total publications (451) of the research faculty at the small business school were published in potentially questionable journals, contrary to the Pyne study, which found significantly more publications (15.3%). In addition, this research casts doubt to the claim made in Pyne’s study that research faculty members who have predatory publications have 4.3 “predatory” publications on average.
41
Richtig, Georg, Erika Richtig, Alexandra Böhm, et al. "Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey." ESMO Open 4, no. 6 (2019): e000580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000580.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionPredatory journals harm the integrity of science as principles of ‘good scientific practice’ are bypassed by omitting a proper peer-review process. Therefore, we aimed to explore the awareness of predatory journals among oncologists.MethodsAn online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-eight participants (55 women (29.2%), 128 men (68.1%)) completed the questionnaire. 41 (21.8%) participants indicated to work in a hospital, 24 (12.8%) in private practice and 112 (59.6%) in a university hospital. 98.9% of participants indicated to actively read scientific articles and consider them in clinical decision-making (96.3%). 90.4% of participants indicated to have scientific experience by publishing papers in journals with peer-review system. The open-access system was known by 170 (90.4%), predatory journals by 131 (69.7%) and Beall’s list by 52 participants (27.7%). Predatory journals were more likely to be known by participants with a higher number of publications (p<0.001), with more high-impact publications (p=0.005) and with recent publications (p<0.001). Awareness of predatory journals did not correlate with gender (p=0.515) or translation of scientific literature into clinical practice (p=0.543).ConclusionsThe problematic topic of ‘predatory journals’ is still unknown by a considerable amount of oncologist, although the survey was taken in a cohort of oncologists with scientific experience. Dedicated educational initiatives are needed to raise awareness of this problem and to aid in the identification of predatory journals for the scientific oncology community.
42
Savegnago de Mira, Bianca, and Rafael Gutierres Castanha. "Periódicos predatórios." AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento 14 (May 19, 2025): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v14.93202.
Full textAbstract:
Introdução: Esta pesquisa tem por objetivo analisar a relação entre as temáticas sobre publicações predatórias, representadas por palavras de artigos indexados na base de dados Web of Science. Método: A fim de analisar a relação entre as palavras-chave de artigos sobre publicações predatórias, foi realizada busca na base de dados Web of Science a partir da estratégia de busca “predatory journal*” OR “predatory publishing” OR “predatory publisher*”. A coleta de dados resultou em 858 documentos que, filtrados por artigo, resultaram em 436; destes, 371 apresentaram palavras-chave atribuídas pelos autores, sendo então selecionados para o estudo. Foram extraídas 973 palavras-chaves distintas via software VOSviewer. Para identificar as palavras-chave mais representativas, selecionou-se aquelas presentes em no mínimo dois artigos, encontrando 210 palavras que atendessem a este critério. Deste montante, gerou-se a rede de coocorrência e calculou-se as estatísticas descritivas das métricas topológicas desta rede. Resultados: sugerem que existe uma diversidade de temas e abordagens nos estudos sobre publicações e periódicos predatórios. A rede de coocorrência de palavras-chave de baixa densidade indicou que esses temas não estão altamente interconectados, o que pode refletir a complexidade do campo. As relações evidenciadas pelas palavras-chave mais frequentes indicam uma forte orientação das pesquisas sobre práticas predatórias às questões representadas pelos termos “predatory journal”, “predatory publishing”, “open access”, “peer review” e “Beall’s List”. Conclusão: Os temas representados pelas palavras-chave apontam para um possível núcleo temático essencial para tratar sobre periódicos e publicações predatórias. Essas palavras-chave alinham-se a questões fundamentais dentro da discussão sobre práticas predatórias.
43
Adeyemo, Adeshina, and Umur Aydogan. "The Rise of Predatory Journals in Foot and Ankle Surgery: Propitious or Detrimental?" Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics 5, no. 4 (2020): 2473011420S0009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011420s00091.
Full textAbstract:
Category Other Introduction/Purpose: In the world of foot and ankle surgery, much like other surgical fields, research has always been a strong foundation for advancing the field and making strides into improving our knowledge base, perfecting surgical techniques and discovering ways of improving patient outcomes. In recent years, there has been the advent of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery, though many clinicians may not be familiar with what predatory journals are. The aim of our study is to objectively analyze F&A surgery predatory journals and compare them to higher impact journals in F&A surgery and dispute whether or not predatory journals are beneficial or detrimental to the field of F&A. Methods: Our inclusion criteria involved all existing foot and ankle journals that were considered to be predatory according to Beall’s criteria. Our authors viewed Beall’s online archive, in addition to a recent publication by Yang et al (4), in which we were able to gather a list of several predatory journals related to the field of foot and ankle surgery. After discussion with the authors, it was decided to select three of the higher impact well-known foot and ankle journals to use as a comparison to the predatory journals. The journals that were selected were the Foot and Ankle International journal (AOFAS), Foot and ankle specialist, and the European Foot and ankle specialist (EFAS). Many journal demographics factors (ISSN, peer review process, PubMed indexig, etc) were compared between both types of journals. Results: Of 7 predatory journals, only 2 (28.6%) responded to an online message in regard to the demographics of their journal. Of the journals that responded, none of the journals directly answered all of the questions that were asked. Only 4 of the 7 journals (57%) disclosed their impact factor, and they ranged from 1.508 to 2.52. 2 journals (28.6%) had an editorial board, while one (14%) did not have an editorial board. Information regarding the editorial board was unable to be gathered from 4 journals, as they did not respond to online messages. 4 journals disclosed an article processing fee ranging from $360-$2145. Conclusion: With financial incentives and job promotions being based on research publications, more and more predatory journals are being created to allow authors in the field to publish. However, this rise in predatory journals is detrimental. With a lack of a thorough peer review for some journals, sky-high article processing fees, and hidden peer review processes, these journals are a threat to the next generation of researchers who are not savvy in literature review. We must make a push to have more stringent criteria to critique and index articles.
44
Mercier, E., P. Tardif, N. Le Sage, and P. Cameron. "P090: Electronic invitations received from predatory journals and fraudulent conferences: a 6-month young researcher experience." CJEM 19, S1 (2017): S108—S109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cem.2017.292.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction: Predatory publishing is a poorly studied emerging threat to scientists. Junior researchers are preferred targets as they are under academic pressure to publish but face high rejection rates by many medical journals. Methods: All electronic invitations received from predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences were collected over a 6-month period (28th April to 27th October 2016) following the first publication of a junior researcher as a corresponding author. Beall’s list was used to identify predatory publishers and James McCrostie’s criteria to assess if a conference should be considered as predatory. The content of electronic invitations was analyzed and is presented with descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 162 electronic invitations were received during the study period. Seventy-nine were invitations to submit a manuscript. Few invitations disclosed information related to publication fees (9, 11.4%) or mentioned any publication guidelines (21, 26.6%). Most invitations reported accepting all types of manuscripts (73, 92.4%) or emphasized on a deadline to submit (62, 78.4%). These invitations came from 22 different publishers lead by OMICS with 27 invitations (34.2%). Seventy-two invitations to be a speaker (55, 73.4%) or attend (17, 23.6%) a predatory conference were received. These conferences were held most frequently in the USA (25, 34.7%), United Kingdom (15, 20.8%) or United Arab Emirates (8, 11.1%) with only eight mentioning registration fees (11.1%). Forty-one conferences (57.0%) were unrelated to the author’s affiliations or research interests. Finally, five invitations to be a journal’s guest editor, five invitations to become a member of a journal editorial board and one invitation to contribute to the creation of a new journal were received. Conclusion: Young researchers are frequently exposed to predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences. An electronic invitation was received almost daily following the first publication as a corresponding author. Academic institutions worldwide need to acknowledge and educate young researchers of this emerging problem.
45
Cohen, Andrew J., German Patino, Puneet Kamal, et al. "Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study." Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, no. 8 (2019): e13769. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/13769.
Full textAbstract:
Background Predatory 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. Objective Our 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. Methods Potential 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. Results A 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<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.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. Conclusions Authors 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.
46
Sharman, A. "Where to publish." Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 97, no. 5 (2015): 329–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.0003.
Full textAbstract:
“If you want to make an impact among your colleagues, look especially at the journals that they’re reading and publishing in” Dr H Goldman, Chief Editor of Polar Research Writing medical articles is highly competitive. Many hours are expended conducting research, and even more hours writing and rewriting the manuscript. Furthermore, countless hours are spent chasing references and performing complex statistics. However, when it comes to understanding the target audience, are authors guilty of not investing as much effort to get maximum impact from the fruits of their labour? The issue of where to send your manuscript has never been more critical. Most clinicians receive daily invitations via email to submit work to journals that sound legitimate and valid. But are they? Although many journals are reputable, many others are not. This stems partly from the sharp decline in paper journals and the parallel exponential rise in digital journals. With intense pressure to publish, it is hard not to be seduced by online journal marketing ploys. For instance, one researcher used www.randomtextgenerator.com to make up an article and submitted it to 37 open access journals over a period of 2 weeks. 1 At least 17 accepted his work and agreed to publish his article once a $500 ‘processing fee’ had been paid. Investing time and effort in ‘where to publish’ is time well spent. It is an exercise in understanding the target audience that will benefit most from the publication. Doing this at an early stage in the publishing process saves valuable time and resources. More importantly, this increases the chances of acceptance. So what are the tips for checking journal legitimacy and avoiding the trap of predatory journals? > Check the journal website and look through a recent issue. > Is the journal indexed? Check journal databases like PubMed Central® or the Web of Science®. Is there a link on the journal web pages to the spoof www.medline.com ? > Check the name of the editor-in-chief and associated board members. > Check the registered address on Google Maps®. > Have your colleagues and friends read, reviewed or published in the journal? > Is the journal identified in Jeffrey Beall’s list of potential predatory journals? 2 Finally, a word about blogs and social media. As the internet revolutionises the whole business of publishing and makes information easy to access, are blogs and self-publishing a way forward for scholarly publications? Such open narratives encourage comments and dialogue with readers, leading to an open and transparent form of peer review. This process itself leads to change, revision and expansion. Is this the future? In this article, Anna Sharman, who launched Cofactor in 2014, provides readers with some useful insights into where to publish. Anna did a PhD degree in biology and then entered the world of journal publishing. She worked for publishers such as BMJ, Public Library of Science, BioMed Central and Nature Publishing Group. Her latest venture, Cofactor, is a company that offers editing advice and training for scientific researchers to help them publish their work more effectively. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Why a fake article titled ‘Cuckoo for cocoa puffs?’ was accepted by 17 medical journals . Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.com/3041493/body-week/why-a-fake-article-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs-was-accepted-by-17-medical-journals (cited May 2015 ). 2. List of Standalone Journals . Scholarly Open Access . http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/ (cited May 2015 ).
47
Siebert, Maximilian, Jeanne Fabiola Gaba, Laura Caquelin, et al. "Data-sharing recommendations in biomedical journals and randomised controlled trials: an audit of journals following the ICMJE recommendations." BMJ Open 10, no. 5 (2020): e038887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038887.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectiveTo explore the implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data-sharing policy which came into force on 1 July 2018 by ICMJE-member journals and by ICMJE-affiliated journals declaring they follow the ICMJE recommendations.DesignA cross-sectional survey of data-sharing policies in 2018 on journal websites and in data-sharing statements in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).SettingICMJE website; PubMed/Medline.Eligibility criteriaICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018, had an accessible online website and were not considered as predatory journals according to Beall’s list. One hundred RCTs for member journals and 100 RCTs for affiliated journals with a data-sharing policy, submitted after 1 July 2018.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome for the policies was the existence of a data-sharing policy (explicit data-sharing policy, no data-sharing policy, policy merely referring to ICMJE recommendations) as reported on the journal website, especially in the instructions for authors. For RCTs, our primary outcome was the intention to share individual participant data set out in the data-sharing statement.ResultsEight (out of 14; 57%) member journals had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (three were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, one was less demanding and four were compliant), five (35%) additional journals stated that they followed the ICMJE requirements, and one (8%) had no policy online. In RCTs published in these journals, there were data-sharing statements in 98 out of 100, with expressed intention to share individual patient data reaching 77 out of 100 (77%; 95% CI 67% to 85%). One hundred and forty-five (out of 489) ICMJE-affiliated journals (30%; 26% to 34%) had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (11 were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, 85 were less demanding and 49 were compliant) and 276 (56%; 52% to 61%) merely referred to the ICMJE requirements. In RCTs published in affiliated journals with an explicit data-sharing policy, data-sharing statements were rare (25%), and expressed intentions to share data were found in 22% (15% to 32%).ConclusionThe implementation of ICMJE data-sharing requirements in online journal policies was suboptimal for ICMJE-member journals and poor for ICMJE-affiliated journals. The implementation of the policy was good in member journals and of concern for affiliated journals. We suggest the conduct of continuous audits of medical journal data-sharing policies in the future.RegistrationThe protocol was registered before the start of the research on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n6whd/).
48
Janen, T. "Awareness and Attitudes Towards Open Access Predatory Publications Among the Academic Staff Members of Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka." Journal of the University Librarians Association of Sri Lanka 27, no. 2 (2024): 145–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/jula.v27i2.8086.
Full textAbstract:
The scholarly community is now dealing with a serious issue with predatory journals. It might be difficult for authors to identify predatory publications apart from reputable ones. The purpose of this study is to investigate the academic staff members of the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka on awareness of predatory publications and open access. The research methodology used in this study to gauge participants' knowledge of "open access" and "predatory publishing" was a questionnaire survey. Data collection involved the use of a pretested questionnaire. The permanent academic staff members affiliated with the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, university of Jaffna comprised the study's population. A link to an online survey was shared with every one of the faculty's fifty-two academic staff members. The response rate of the study was 67.30 %. MS Excel was used for the data analysis to describe the data in frequencies, percentages and rank orders of responses.Socio demographic details shows that, highest number of respondents are female (57.14%), completed master/MPhil (51.42%), senior lecturer (57.14%) and interested in marketing (28.57%) as their research discipline. Respondents expressed their priority order for the factors considered to select journal to submit manuscript for publications, journal indexing is the highest priority. All the respondents have an idea about the open access publishing system. Respondents are expected to publish in open access journals because of high visibility, increasing citation number, prestigious journals and fast publication process in a frequency order. The result of the survey shows that, 97.15% of the respondents are knowledgeable about predatory publishing. Majority of the respondents are characterized, the predatory journals are, no insufficient peer review process, and Beall’s list of predatory journals used by the high number of respondents to differentiate legitimate journals from predatory journals. More than half of the respondents are satisfied with the services provided by the library to avoid publishing in predatory journals. Responses are summarized for each of the 8 statements about the impact of publishing in predatory journals. Almost all the statements are agreed by the respondents other than the statement of “Articles published in predatory journals are poor in quality”. Highest agreement found for the statement 3 which is “Predatory publications are not considered for any academic reward” in which 14out of 35 were strongly agreed and followed by the statement 2 “many researchers published articles due to lack of awareness about predatory publication” (13 out of 35). Finally respondents are suggested to organize more awareness session on open access publishing and journal selection to avoid predatory publishing.
49
Riano, Ivy, Hugo Pomares-Millan, Chet W. Hammill, and Nikolaos Trikalinos. "Evaluating the quality of clinical evidence in gastrointestinal cancers PubMed searches: How relevant are the results?" Journal of Clinical Oncology 40, no. 16_suppl (2022): 11037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.11037.
Full textAbstract:
11037 Background: Bibliographic repositories have become increasingly important as clinical evidence is more accessible on the internet. Often, oncologists rely on published literature to guide patient care. However, with the proliferation of journals and increasing number of peer reviewed papers, current search strategies have the potential to retrieve large numbers of irrelevant or misleading articles. Moreover, access to current best evidence may require paid subscriptions. Here, we assessed the quality of retrieved medical literature pertaining to treatment of gastrointestinal cancers using the PubMed database. Methods: We interrogated 6 focused-therapy questions in 3 categories: medical oncology (MedOnc), surgical oncology (SurgOnc), and alternative medicine (AltMed). We extracted journal metrics of the first two pages (40 results) from each search. We defined the composite outcome “relevant result” as the product of removing results from 1) predatory journals (Beall’s list), 2) non-English language, and 3) no free access publications. As a sensitivity analysis, we defined 2007 as a cutoff for “relevant” publications and Impact Factor (IF) > 3 or H-index > 50. Results: Two hundred and forty results were retrieved (80 per search type). Forty-eight percent of the journals were European (n = 115), 40% US-based (n = 96), and 94% were in English (n = 225). Most journals (n = 170; 70.8%) had an IF between 1-10, followed by ̃21% with an IF > 10 (n = 51); yet ̃45% (n = 107) were in the Clarivate Analytics top quartile. Sixty percent (n = 139) of articles were free to access. The articles had a median H-index of 117 [IR 59, 168]. When modelling the multivariate association with “relevant result”, year of publication after 2007 had an OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.01-1.14; p< 0.02) and availability through GOLD Open Access by Clarivate Analytics had an OR = 1.09 (95% CI = 1.03-1.15; p< 0.0008). MedOnc retrieved more papers published in journals with IF > 10 (n = 31; 38.8%) than SurgOnc searches (n = 12; 15%; p< 0.001). Only the AltMed searches included non-peer reviewed publications (n = 4; 5%) and 4 results were from “predatory journals”, all in MedOnc. Conclusions: Articles had a 7% higher chance of being considered a “relevant result” if they were published after 2007 and a 9% higher chance if available under GOLD Open Access. Publications identified as “relevant results” with an IF or H-index above the established cutoffs, had a 6% higher chance to be in the top 40 PubMed search results. In the sensitivity analysis the results remain virtually unchanged. Importantly, nearly 40% of papers indexed in PubMed do not have free full-text articles, making them unavailable to oncologists without access to a medical library or paid subscription. These results highlight the imperative to deliver relevant, freely accessible information that can impact the care of the cancer patients.
50
Al Kaissi, Ali, Sergey Ryabykh, Nabil Nassib, et al. "Craniofacial Malformations as Fundamental Diagnostic Tools in Syndromic Entities." Diagnostics 12, no. 10 (2022): 2375. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102375.
Full textAbstract:
Background: A long list of syndromic entities can be diagnosed immediately through scrutinizing the clinical phenotype of the craniofacial features. The latter should be assisted via proper radiological interpretations. Patients and Methods: Different children aged from 1 month to 12 years were referred to our departments seeking orthopedic advice. Primarily, all received variable false diagnoses in other institutes. Two unrelated boys of one month and 12 months were falsely diagnosed as having positional plagiocephaly associated with contractures of idiopathic origin. Two unrelated boys of 14 months and 2 years were diagnosed with pseudo-hydrocephalus and non-specific syndrome, and were referred to explore their skeletal development. Two unrelated girls of 4 years old and 12 years old presented with multiple contractures were referred because of progressive scoliosis. A 4-year-old girl was referred with a false provisional diagnosis of facial diplegia. All children underwent detailed clinical, radiological and tomographic phenotypic characterizations and genetic testing, respectively. Results: Idaho syndrome (craniosynostosis associated with multiple dislocations) was the final diagnosis in the two unrelated boys with plagiocephaly and multiple contractures. Two children falsely diagnosed with pseudo-hydrocephalus and non-specific syndrome, were diagnosed with Silver–Russell syndrome (RSS). Contractural arachnodactyly Beals (CAB) was confirmed as the definitive diagnosis in the two unrelated girls with progressive scoliosis and multiple contractures. Parry–Romberg syndrome (PRS) associated with congenital lumbar kyphosis was the final diagnosis of the girl with the diagnosis of facial diplegia. Hypomethylation of ICR1 was confirmed in the RSS patients. Whole exome sequencing (WES) revealed a heterozygous mutation in the PRS patients. WES and array-CGH showed that no relevant variants or copy number variations (CNV) were identified in the CAB patients. Conclusions: On the one hand, newborn children can manifest diverse forms of abnormal craniofacial features, which are usually associated with either major or minor dysmorphic stigmata. A cleft lip/ palate is a major craniofacial malformation, and frontal bossing or a disproportionate craniofacial contour can be falsely considered as a transient plagiocephaly, which is spontaneously resolved by time. On the other hand, many physicians fall into the problem of deeming a countless number of diseases, such as contractures, as an idiopathic or non-specific syndrome. The latter stems from limited clinical experience. Therefore, failing to establish between the onset of the deformity and other inexplicit abnormal features that the patient or their immediate families or relatives carry is the final outcome. In this study, we used, for the first time, a reconstruction CT scan to further delineate the congenital disruption of the craniofacial anatomy and the other skeletal malformation complex.