Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases

Predatory journals: Perception, impact and use of Beall's list by the scientific community-A bibliometric big data study

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.

Rebranding of Predatory Journals and Conferences: Understanding Its Implication and Prevention Strategy

Academic conference participation and publications serve as a litmus test to evaluate researchers irrespective of their scientific discipline. Predatory or fake conferences and journals exploit this issue and rebrand themselves through multiple methods. This paper serves to introduce rebranding as one of the features adopted by predatory journals and conferences and formulate some important measures that could be taken by academic libraries, researchers, and publishers to address this issue. We found that rebranding serves as an efficient measure to evade legal implications. However, empirical longitudinal studies addressing the issue are absent. We have explained rebranding, multiple ways of rebranding, issues surrounding predatory publishing, and the role of academic libraries and provided a five-point prevention strategy to protect researchers from academic malpractices. Dedicated tools, scientific prowess, and vigilance of academic libraries and researchers can safeguard the scientific community. Creating awareness, increasing transparency of available databases, and the support of academic libraries and publishing houses along with global support will serve as effective measures to tackle predatory malpractices.

Prevalence of refractive errors in Nepalese children and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Country-specific estimates of the prevalence of refractive errors are important to formulate national eye health policies for refractive care services.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to systematically synthesise available literature and estimate the prevalence of refractive errors in the Nepalese population.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for articles on refractive errors and presbyopia published in English language until 27 September 2022. Population and school-based quantitative, cross-sectional prevalence studies and Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness survey repository data were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. Data extraction was performed with consensus among the reviewers. Meta-analysis of the prevalence was performed using the Random effects model to estimate the pooled proportions.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies with 101 701 participants were included: 18 studies in children (n = 31 596) and 20 in adults (n = 70 105). In children, the estimated pooled prevalence of overall refractive errors was 8.4% (95% CI: 4.8 to 12.9) with myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism prevalent in 7.1% (95% CI: 3.7 to 11.4), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.7 to 1.3) and 2.2% (95% CI: 0.9 to 3.9), respectively. In adults, the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive errors, and uncorrected presbyopia were 11.2% (95% CI: 8.0 to 14.9), 7.3% (95% CI: 5.4 to 9.5) and 78.9% (95% CI: 69.1 to 87.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled prevalence of refractive errors is relatively low while uncorrected refractive errors and presbyopia are high in Nepalese population suggesting a need for better access to refractive care services in the country. The paucity of quality evidence on prevalence of refractive errors, particularly in children, indicates a need for a well-designed population-based study to accurately estimate the current prevalence of refractive errors.

A descriptive study found low prevalence of presumed predatory publications in a subset of Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from "reputable" to "presumed predatory" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.

RESULTS

We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.

Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study of Hungary

As the open access movement has gained widespread popularity in the scientific community, academic publishers have gradually adapted to the new environment. The pioneer open access journals have turned themselves into megajournals, and the subscription-based publishers have established open access branches and have turned subscription-based journals into hybrid ones. Maybe the most dramatic outcome of the open access boom is the market entry of such fast-growing open access publishers as Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). By 2021, in terms of the number of papers published, MDPI has become one of the largest academic publishers worldwide. However, the publisher’s market shares across countries and regions show an uneven pattern. Whereas in such scientific powers as the United States and China, MDPI has remained a relatively small-scale player, it has gained a high market share in Europe, particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In 2021, 28 percent of the SCI/SSCI papers authored/co-authored by researchers from CEE countries were published in MDPI journals, a share that was as high as the combined share of papers published by Elsevier and Springer Nature, the two largest academic publishers in the world. This paper seeks to find an explanation for the extensively growing share of MDPI in the publication outputs of CEE countries by choosing Hungary as a case study. To do this, by employing data analysis, some unique features of MDPI will be revealed. Then, we will present the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among Hungary-based researchers regarding MDPI and the factors that motivated them to publish in MDPI journals. Our results show that researchers generally consider MDPI journals’ sufficiently prestigious, emphasizing the importance of the inclusion of MDPI journals in Scopus and Web of Science databases and their high ranks and impacts. However, most researchers posit that the quick turnaround time that MDPI journals offer is the top driver of publishing in such journals.

Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals

The role of academic journals is significant in the reward system of science, which makes their rank important for the researcher's choice in deciding where to submit. The study asks how choices of immediate gold and hybrid open access are related to journal ranking and how the uptake of immediate open access is affected by transformative publish-and-read deals, pushed by recent science policy. Data consists of 186,621 articles published with a Norwegian affiliation in the period 2013–2021, all of which were published in journals ranked in a National specific ranking, on one of two levels according to their importance, prestige, and perceived quality within a discipline. The results are that researchers chose to have their articles published as hybrid two times as often in journals on the most prestigious level compared with journals on the normal level. The opposite effect was found with gold open access where publishing on the normal level was chosen three times more than on the high level. This can be explained by the absence of highly ranked gold open access journals in many disciplines. With the introduction of publish-and-read deals, hybrid open access has boosted and become a popular choice enabling the researcher to publish open access in legacy journals. The results confirm the position of journals in the reward system of science and should inform policymakers about the effects of transformative arrangements and their costs against the overall level of open access.

Four Decades of Clinical Liver Transplantation Research: Results of a Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nearly 40 y have passed since the 1983 National Institutes of Health Consensus-Development-Conference, which has turned liver transplantation (LT) from a clinical experiment into a routine therapeutic modality. Since' clinical LT has changed substantially. We aimed to comprehensively analyze the publication trends in the most-cited top-notch literature in LT science over a 4-decade period.

METHODS

A total of 106 523 items were identified between January 1981 and May 2021 from the Web of Science Core Collection. The top 100 articles published were selected using 2 distinct citation-based strategies to minimize bias. Various bibliometric tools were used for data synthesis and visualization.

RESULTS

The citation count for the final dataset of the top 100 articles ranged from 251 to 4721. Most articles were published by US authors (n = 61). The most prolific institution was the University of Pittsburgh (n = 15). The highest number of articles was published in Annals of Surgery, Hepatology, and Transplantation ; however, Hepatology publications resulted in the highest cumulative citation of 9668. Only 10% of the articles were classified as evidence level 1. Over 90% of first/last authors were male. Our data depict the evolution of research focus over 40 y. In part, a disproportional flow of citations was observed toward already well-cited articles. This might also project a slowed canonical progress, which was described in other fields of science.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights key trends based on a large dataset of the most-cited articles over a 4-decade period. The present analysis not only provides an important cross-sectional and forward-looking guidance to clinicians, funding bodies, and researchers but also draws attention to important socio-academic or demographic aspects in LT.

Assessing the impact of predatory journals on policy and guidance documents: a cross-sectional study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Many predatory journals fail to follow best publication practices. Studies assessing the impact of predatory journals have focused on how these articles are cited in reputable academic journals. However, it is possible that research from predatory journals is cited beyond the academic literature in policy documents and guidelines. Given that research used to inform public policy or government guidelines has the potential for widespread impact, we will examine whether predatory journals have penetrated public policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a descriptive study with no hypothesis testing. Policy documents that cite work from the known predatory publisher OMICS will be downloaded from the Overton database. Overton collects policy documents from over 1200 sources worldwide. Policy documents will be evaluated to determine how the predatory journal article is used. We will also extract epidemiological details of the policy documents, including: who funded their development, the discipline the work is relevant to and the name of the organisations producing the policy. The record of scholarly citations of the identified predatory articles will also be examined. Findings will be reported with descriptive statistics using counts and percentages.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval was required for this study since it does not involve human or animal research. Study findings will be discussed at workshops on journalology and predatory publishing and will be disseminated through preprint, peer-reviewed literature and conference presentations.

Practical Tools and Guidelines for Young Oncologists From Resource-Limited Settings to Publish Excellence and Advance Their Career

Cancer research is evolving worldwide. However, publishing high-quality academic literature in oncology remains challenging for authors in the developing world. Young oncologists in low- and middle-income countries experience several barriers including lack of funding and research facilities, as well as inadequate training. Publication best practices, science integrity, and ethics are required to improve oncology research quality and therefore, improve patients' care in these countries. To achieve this goal, we propose some basic principles and tools that may help young oncologists especially in developing countries overcome these issues and boost their academic careers.

Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

Intensified pressure to publish is a hallmark of a rapidly evolving higher education field where the faculty of any hue cannot avoid the ‘publish or perish’ treadmill. Growing need to publish more and to do so fast have resulted in the proliferation of pseudo scholarly publications many regards as ‘predatory’. This article provides a systematic review of research studies on so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, a new but fast-growing area of research, with a particular focus on the awareness of prospective authors about so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, the profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and the causal factors encouraging authors to publish in such outlets. It synthetizes the results of research studies on the topic to identify gaps and trends in the existing knowledgebase to guide further research. Results indicate so-called ‘predatory’ articles are authored by scholars from all fields and levels of academic experience rather than by inexperienced scholars only and ‘predatory’ contributions are not limited to developing countries, suggesting geographical location and author experience fail to explain the author profile of ‘predatory’ articles. Findings of this review suggest causal factors include research evaluation policies and publication pressure that emerge from the research environment in which scholars operate authors’ limited capacity to publish in ‘legitimate’ journals and conventions of so-called ‘predatory’ publishers. This indicates meaningful action might address all these factors in combination, rather than focus on them in isolation.

Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

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.

Predatory Open Access Journals are Indexed in Reputable Databases: a Revisiting Issue or an Unsolved Problem

Introduction:

Pseudo journals, hijacked journals, fraudulent journals, fake journals, and predatory journals waste valuable research when authors publish their studies in them.

Aim:

This article described novel suggested features for the identification of fraudulent journals and aimed to explain this issue to help inexperienced scientists avoid publishing in predatory journals.

Methods:

The articles related to this topic in were retrieved from PubMed and trustable Internet sources.

Results:

Unfortunately, some fake journals have made their way into reputable databases, such as PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science; thus, the serious question has been raised regarding how we should address this problematic phenomenon. We recommended 28 suggested characteristics of predatory journals for readers to take into consideration.

Conclusion:

Unaware of the detrimental effects associated with publishing in disreputable journals, inexperienced researchers can fall victim to them. Together, as both readers and writers, we should completely boycott predatory journals.

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.

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action

PURPOSE

To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work.

DESIGN

Descriptive editorial article.

METHODS

Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic.

RESULTS

Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific world, on funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties.

CONCLUSION

We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.

Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project

Background: Scopus is a leading bibliometric database. It contains a large part of the articles cited in peer-reviewed publications . The journals included in Scopus are periodically re-evaluated to ensure they meet indexing criteria and some journals might be discontinued for 'publication concerns'. Previously published articles may remain indexed and can be cited. Their metrics have yet to be studied. This study aimed  to evaluate the main features and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns, before and after their discontinuation, and to determine the extent of predatory journals among the discontinued journals.

Methods: We surveyed the list of discontinued journals from Scopus (July 2019). Data regarding metrics, citations and indexing were extracted from Scopus or other scientific databases, for the journals discontinued for publication concerns. 

Results: A total of 317 journals were evaluated. Ninety-three percent of the journals (294/317) declared they published using an Open Access model. The subject areas with the greatest number of discontinued journals were  Medicine (52/317; 16%),  Agriculture and Biological Science (34/317; 11%), and  Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (31/317; 10%). The mean number of citations per year after discontinuation was significantly higher than before (median of difference 16.89 citations, p<0.0001), and so was the number of citations per document (median of difference 0.42 citations, p<0.0001). Twenty-two percent (72/317) were included in the Cabell’s blacklist. The DOAJ currently included only 9 journals while 61 were previously included and discontinued, most for 'suspected editorial misconduct by the publisher'.

Conclusions: Journals discontinued for 'publication concerns' continue to be cited despite discontinuation and predatory behaviour seemed common. These citations may influence scholars’ metrics prompting artificial career advancements, bonus systems and promotion. Countermeasures should be taken urgently to ensure the reliability of Scopus metrics for the purpose of scientific assessment of scholarly publishing at both journal- and author-level.

Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project

Background: Scopus is a leading bibliometric database. It contains the largest number of articles cited in peer-reviewed publications. The journals included in Scopus are periodically re-evaluated to ensure they meet indexing criteria and some journals might be discontinued for publication concerns. These journals remain indexed and can be cited. Their metrics have yet to be studied. This study aimed to evaluate the main features and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns, before and after their discontinuation, and to determine the extent of predatory journals among the discontinued journals. Methods: We surveyed the list of discontinued journals from Scopus (July 2019). Data regarding metrics, citations and indexing were extracted from Scopus or other scientific databases, for the journals discontinued for publication concerns.  Results: A total of 317 journals were evaluated. Ninety-three percent of the journals (294/318) declared they published using an Open Access model. The subject areas with the greatest number of discontinued journals were Medicine (52/317; 16%), Agriculture and Biological Science (34/317; 11%), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (31/317; 10%). The mean number of citations per year after discontinuation was significantly higher than before (median of difference 64 citations, p<0.0001), and so was the number of citations per document (median of difference 0.4 citations, p<0.0001). Twenty-two percent (72/317) were included in the Cabell’s blacklist. The DOAJ currently included only 9 journals while 61 were previously included and discontinued, most for 'suspected editorial misconduct by the publisher'. Conclusions: The citation count of journals discontinued for publication concerns increases despite discontinuation and predatory behaviors seemed common. This paradoxical trend can inflate scholars’ metrics prompting artificial career advancements, bonus systems and promotion. Countermeasures should be taken urgently to ensure the reliability of Scopus metrics both at the journal- and author-level for the purpose of scientific assessment of scholarly publishing.

Putting Misinformation Under a Microscope: Exploring Technologies to Address Predatory False Information Online

The dissemination of misinformation in health care and the sciences has become a growing concern over the last five years. Whether the false information is spread with malice or merely ignorance, researchers, providers, librarians, regulatory bodies, and internet platform providers have all begun taking steps to identify false information and halt its proliferation online. Some companies have begun looking at ways to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to timely and widespread identification efforts. This column will investigate what technologies are currently being considered for addressing the misinformation crisis, discuss concerns over the application of such technologies, and consider methods for libraries to become more involved with the technological side of the issue.