The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology

Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study

AIMS

To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship.

METHODS

An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

"Researchers' perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey"

The term "Predatory" alludes to the assumption that these organizations prey on academics for financial gain by charging article processing charges (APC) while failing to meet scholarly publishing standards.Predatory publishing is a growing threat to the academic society. Considering this,the University Grants Commission (UGC),India's statutory body for higher education,has responded by launching the University Grants Commission-Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (UGC-CARE) list,which attempts to promote research quality,integration,and publication ethics.An online survey was undertaken to determine the perception and awareness of North Eastern Hill University's researchers concerning predatory journals.A total of 160 respondents were recorded.The survey reveals that while the majority of participants (58.75%) were aware of predatory publications, a significant portion (41.25%) were not.It was found that a journal's listing in UGC-CARE list is the most crucial factor in submitting an original manuscript for publication.Researchers,aware of the negative consequences of publishing in piracy-related publications,prefer not to submit their scientific work to such publishers as it risk tarnishing their reputation.As a result,research findings emphasize the necessity for awareness initiatives to educate researchers about predatory publications early in their academic careers.Research initiatives like the UGC-CARE list should be encouraged to minimize predatory publishing; promote quality and transparency in research.Abbreviation: NEHU- North Eastern Hill University, UGC- University Grants Commission, APC- Article Processing Charge, UGC-CARE- University Grants Commission - Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics, DOAJ- Directory of Open Access Journals, DOI - Digital Object Identifiers, API- Academic Performance Indicator.

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

Objective

The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.

Methods

Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.

Results

Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.

Conclusion

The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

Efficient functional localization of language regions in the brain

Important recent advances in the cognitive neuroscience of language have been made using functional localizers to demarcate language-selective regions in individual brains. Although single-subject localizers offer insights that are unavailable in classic group analyses, they require additional scan time that imposes costs on investigators and participants. In particular, the unique practical challenges of scanning children and other special populations has led to less adoption of localizers for neuroimaging research with these theoretically and clinically important groups. Here, we examined how measurements of the spatial extent and functional response profiles of language regions are affected by the duration of an auditory language localizer. We compared how parametrically smaller amounts of data collected from one scanning session affected (i) consistency of group-level whole-brain parcellations, (ii) functional selectivity of subject-level activation in individually defined functional regions of interest (fROIs), (iii) sensitivity and specificity of subject-level whole-brain and fROI activation, and (iv) test-retest reliability of subject-level whole-brain and fROI activation. For many of these metrics, the localizer duration could be reduced by 50-75% while preserving the stability and reliability of both the spatial extent and functional response profiles of language areas. These results indicate that, for most measures relevant to cognitive neuroimaging studies, the brain's language network can be localized just as effectively with 3.5 min of scan time as it can with 12 min. Minimizing the time required to reliably localize the brain's language network allows more effective localizer use in situations where each minute of scan time is particularly precious.

Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers

AIMS

We explored the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards predatory publishing.

METHODS

A retrospective pre-post quasi experimental design was implemented on HCWs within King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Following a 60-min educational lecture, a self-administered questionnaire was completed by participants. Pre- and post-intervention scores for familiarity, knowledge, practices, and attitudes were compared using the paired sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify predictors of mean differences (MD) of knowledge scores.

RESULTS

A total of 121 respondents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants demonstrated underwhelming awareness of predatory publishing and average levels of knowledge of their characteristics. Furthermore, respondents did not take the necessary precautions to avoid predatory publishers. The intervention (i.e. the educational lecture) improved familiarity (MD: 13.4; 95%CI: 12.4 - 14.4; p-value < .001), knowledge of predatory journal's characteristics (MD: 12.9; 95%CI: 11.1 - 14.8; p-value < .001), awareness and perceived compliance to preventive measures (MD: 7.7; 95%CI: 6.7 - 8.6; p-value < .001), and positively influenced attitudes towards open access and safe publishing (MD: 0.8; 95%CI: 0.2 - 1.5; p-value = 0.012). Females had significantly lower familiarity scores (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, those who had published in open access journals, received at least one predatory e-mail, or had more than 5 published original articles had significantly higher familiarity and knowledge scores (all p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An educational lecture proved effective in improving awareness of KHCC's HCW's to predatory publishers. Nonetheless, the mediocrity of pre-intervention scores raises concerns on effectiveness of the predatory covert practices.

h-Index, Journal Citation Indicator, and Other Impact Factors in Neurosurgical Publications: Is There a Cost Factor That Determines the Quality?

OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in number of Neurosurgical publications, including open access (OA), in recent years. We aimed to compare journals' performance and the relationship to submission fees incurred in publication.

METHODS

We identified 53 journals issuing neurosurgery-related work. Quantitative analysis from various search engines involved obtaining h-index, Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), and other metrics such as Immediacy Index and 5-year impact factor utilising Journal Citation Reports. OA fees and individual subscription fees were collected. Correlations were produced using Spearman rho (ρ) (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Median h-index for 53 journals was 54 (range: 0-292), with JCI median reported as 0.785 (range: 0-2.45). Median Immediacy Index was 0.797 (range: 0-4.076), and median for 5-year impact factor was 2.76 (range: 0-12.704). There was a very strong positive correlation between JCI and Immediacy Index, JCI and 5-year impact factor, and 5-year impact factor and Immediacy Index (ρ > 0.7, P < 0.05). It is unclear whether there was any correlation between the indices and the OA costs and subscription costs for personal usage (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger costs incurred for OA fees and subscription costs for personal use do not clearly reflect on the journals' performance, as quantified by using various indices. There appears to be a strong association with performance across the journals' metrics. It would be beneficial to include learning about bibliometric indices' impact for research publications in medical education training to maximize the quality of the scientific work produced and increase the visibility of the information produced. The potential full movement to exclusively OA journals would create a significant barrier for junior researchers, small institutions, and full time-trainee physicians with limited funding available. This study suggests the need for a robust measurement of journals' output and the quality of the work produced.

[Predatory journals in otorhinolaryngology]

BACKGROUND

Pseudo-scientific predatory journals have been making a commercially lucrative business with scientific manuscripts for many years misusing the "open access" model by offering a fast and uncomplicated publication of scientific manuscripts in return for publication fees. The question arises as to whether the specialty field of otorhinolaryngology has already been infiltrated by this bad practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A pseudo-scientific fake manuscript was sent to 20 journals in which the journal title indicated an otorhinolaryngological content. Half of the journals were traditional otorhinolaryngology journals, which publish a print edition and which are mainly financed by subscriptions and advertisements. The other half were journals that published exclusively according to the "open access" model. Various parameters of the journals and of the review process were evaluated.

RESULTS

All 10 traditional ORL journals refused to publish the fake manuscript. Among the journals that published exclusively according to the "open access" model, there was one rejection of the manuscript, while 2 journals recommended a revision and 7 journals accepted the manuscript directly for publication.

CONCLUSION

Predatory publishers and journals are also active in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Especially at journals that publish articles exclusively "open access" for a publication or processing fee, scientific authors should be careful and check the seriousness of the journal in advance by using recommended hints and tools.

An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals.

METHODS

Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases.

RESULTS

A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Researchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.

Clinical research in dementia: A perspective on implementing innovation

The increasing global prevalence of dementia demands concrete actions that are aimed strategically at optimizing processes that drive clinical innovation. The first step in this direction requires outlining hurdles in the transition from research to practice. The different parties needed to support translational processes have communication mismatches; methodological gaps hamper evidence-based decision-making; and data are insufficient to provide reliable estimates of long-term health benefits and costs in decisional models. Pilot projects are tackling some of these gaps, but appropriate methods often still need to be devised or adapted to the dementia field. A consistent implementation perspective along the whole translational continuum, explicitly defined and shared among the relevant stakeholders, should overcome the "research-versus-adoption" dichotomy, and tackle the implementation cliff early on. Concrete next steps may consist of providing tools that support the effective participation of heterogeneous stakeholders and agreeing on a definition of clinical significance that facilitates the selection of proper outcome measures.

Impact of Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery Literature: Researchers Beware

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals have exploited the open access publishing model and are considered as a major threat to the integrity of scientific research. The goal of this study was to characterize predatory publishing practices in plastic surgery.

METHODS

To identify potentially predatory journals in the field of plastic surgery, the authors searched the Cabells' Predatory Reports and Beall's List using preidentified keywords. For presumed legitimate open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was queried. The characteristics of potentially predatory journals were compared to those of legitimate open access plastic surgery journals.

RESULTS

The authors identified a total of 25 plastic surgery-focused journals. Out of the 25 potentially predatory journals, only 15 journals had articles published within the last 5 years, with a mean number of articles of 33 ± 39 (range, 2 to 159 articles). The mean number of predatory violations according to Cabells' criteria was 6.8 ± 1.4 (range, 3 to 9). Using the DOAJ database, the authors identified a total of 24 plastic surgery-related journals. Compared to potentially predatory journals, journals from the DOAJ were more likely to be indexed in PubMed (0 versus 50 percent, respectively, p < 0.0001). Time to publication was significantly higher in journals from the DOAJ (17 ± 7 versus 4 ± 1 weeks; p = 0.006). Despite higher article processing charges in the DOAJ group, this difference was not statically significant ($1425 ± $717 versus $1071 ± $1060; p = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Predatory journals are pervasive in the medical literature and plastic surgery is no exception. Plastic surgeons should practice due diligence when choosing a target journal for their articles. Journals with predatory practices should be distinguished from legitimate open access publication platforms.

Navigating the Gray of Academic Publication: Avoiding Predatory Publishers and Creating Your "Whitelist"

ABSTRACT

Academic publishing has undergone a transition from print-based, subscription access journals targeted toward physicians and scientists to the widely accessible, open access (OA) format made possible by the Internet. The objectives of OA broadly include audience expansion and improved public access to publicly funded research, reduction of limitations on content reuse and alteration, and prompt turnaround from submission to publication. Despite well-intended founding principles, unexpected disadvantages of the OA model have arisen including the emergence of predatory journals, which exploit the author-pays publishing model with the deceptive promise of reputable publishing platforms. Predatory journals can be difficult to discern from the legitimate yet unsophisticated novice journal, which represents a destructive influence on the credibility of surgeons and scientists within many specialties. As an author, when the highly reputable, "whitelisted" journals in our field are not available or interested in the scope of our work, how can we ensure authenticity of those journals that exist in the gray area between legitimate and illegitimate? Given these questions, the goal of this article is to demystify the history and selected issues that surround academic publication including content access, licensing, indexing, and journal metrics. With this background, we then evaluate highly visible OA journals in plastic and reconstructive surgery and build a basic framework, which authors can use to evaluate a journal for legitimacy and visibility.

Open Access Fees: A Barrier to Scholarly Activity Among Neurology Trainees

The open access publishing model provides readers of all backgrounds access to articles free of charge. To cover the costs of open access, however, many journals now charge substantial article processing fees. This has inadvertently created yet another barrier for trainees to engage in scholarly activity. Herein, we describe the issue, review the literature, and provide suggestions for addressing this barrier with the focus on the neurology specialty.

Avoiding predatory publishing for early-career ophthalmologists

This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall’s, Cabell’s, Manca’s, and Strinzel’s list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50–500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50–3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.

The Relationship Between Open Access Article Publishing and Short-Term Citations in Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to compare the number of citations received by open access articles versus subscription access articles in subscription journals in the Otolaryngology literature.

METHODS

Using the Dimensions research database, we examined articles indexed to PubMed with at least 5 citations published in 2018. Articles were included from Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, and American Journal of Otolaryngology. Multivariate Poisson regression modeling was used to adjust for journal, article type, and topic. Practice guidelines, position statements, or retractions were excluded as potential outliers.

RESULTS

137 open access articles and 337 subscription access articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, with a median citation number of 8 (IQR 6-11). The most common article type was original investigation (82.5%), and the most common study topic was head and neck (28.9%). Open access articles had a higher median number of citations at 9 (IQR 6-13) when compared to subscription access articles at 7 (IQR 6-10) (P = .032). Open access status was significantly associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles when adjusting for journal, article type, and topic (β = .272, CI 0.194-0.500, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although comprising a minority of articles examined in this study of subscription journals, open access articles were associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles. Open access publishing may facilitate the spread of novel findings in Otolaryngology.

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.

Differentiating between questionable and legitimate trauma journals: A systematic review and evaluation of two sets of criteria

BACKGROUND

The sudden increase of questionable or predatory journals has raised concerns in the medical literature. The aims of this study were to identify potentially legitimate and questionable trauma journals and to assess the applicability of criteria previously proposed in the literature to distinguish them.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify journals using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Presumed legitimate journals were identified using nine databases (Directory of Open Access Journals, PubMed, Web of Science, etc.). Presumed questionable journals were identified using Google Search/Scholar, emails received and former Beall's lists. Scientific active English journals whose titles contained the words injury or trauma were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected journals and extracted information from their websites. Criteria to differentiate journals status were based on two lists proposed by Shamseer et al. (2017; salient characteristics) and Wicherts (2016; transparency of peer review's items) and treated as dichotomous variables. Applicability of criteria to distinguish journal status was assessed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Following duplicate removal, 54 potentially legitimate and 30 potentially questionable active English journals were included. Among 13 salient characteristics, seven were found to distinguish potentially legitimate from potentially questionable trauma journals: the presence of fuzzy images or spelling and grammar errors on the website, homepages targeting authors, request to submit manuscripts by email, the absence of a retraction policy, promise of rapid publication and copyright claims. However, only 3/14 of Wicherts' items were associated with journal status: journal's website highlights issues of publication ethics, the journal has clear guidelines concerning sharing and availability of research data, and journal allows authors to indicate names of (non-) desired reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty-four active English trauma journals were identified. Among 27 criteria, 10 were found to determine trauma journals status related to their scientific legitimacy. Though no single criteria is foolproof, these criteria may be helpful to authors, readers, and reviewers when assessing potential legitimacy of scientific trauma journals.

Evolution of the Research Literature and the Scientific Community of Alzheimer's Disease from 1983-2017: A 35-Year Survey

This study surveys the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the research literature, the scientific community, and the journals containing AD papers over a 35-year period. Research papers on AD published from 1983 to 2017 in journals indexed in the Web of Science were analyzed in seven five-year periods. The number of AD papers increased from 1,095 in 1983-1987 to 50,532 by 2013-2017 and in the same time period, the number of participating countries went from 27 to 152. The US was the most prolific country throughout, followed by several European countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Asian countries have emerged and by 2013-2017, China surpassed all but the US in productivity. Countries in Latin America and Africa have also contributed to AD research. Additionally, several new non-governmental institutions (e.g., ADNI, ADI) have emerged and now play a key role in the fight against AD. Likewise the AD scientific publishing universe evolved in various aspects: an increase in number of journals containing AD papers (227 journals in 1983-1987 to 3,257 in 2013-2017); appearance of several AD-focused journals, e.g., Alzheimer's & Dementia, Journal of Alzheimer's Disease; and the development of special issues dedicated to AD. Our paper complements the numerous extant papers on theoretical and clinical aspects of AD and provides a description of the research landscape of the countries and journals contributing papers related to AD.

[Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 2 Assess their consequences and initiate a response]

The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct.

Integrity of Databases for Literature Searches in Nursing: Avoiding Predatory Journals

The quality of literature used as the foundation to any research or scholarly project is critical. The purpose of this study was to analyze the extent to which predatory nursing journals were included in credible databases, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus, commonly used by nurse scholars when searching for information. Findings indicated that no predatory nursing journals were currently indexed in MEDLINE or CINAHL, and only one journal was in Scopus. Citations to articles published in predatory nursing journals are not likely found in a search using these curated databases but rather through Google or Google Scholar search engines.

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.

PRESUMED PREDATORY JOURNALS ARE ABUNDANT IN ORAL HEALTH

OBJECTIVE

to identify characteristics of presumed predatory (PP) journals, presumed legitimate open access (PLOA) journals, and presumed legitimate subscription (PLS) journals published in dentistry.

METHODS

We assessed presumed predatory (PP), presumed legitimate open access (PLOA) and presumed legitimate subscription (PLS) journals using indicators reported in the literature consisting of 29 items in the form of questions in a cross-sectional setting. The indicators formed the basis for the 13 salient characteristics of PP journals that were used to generate scores. Greater scores would imply that the journal was more likely to be predatory compared to lower score journals. Associations between predatory score and journal type were examined using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and classification to the 3 groups based on the article characteristics was implemented using the random forest approach.

RESULTS

From the 580 potentially eligible journals, 431 dental journals were included: 226 PP (52%), 111 (26%) PLOA, and 94 (22%) PLS. There were significant differences in the predatory score among the three groups; PP journals had the highest mean score and PLS journals the lowest mean score. Mention or reporting to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) database and journals´website with distorted or blurry images were the most influential variables for accurate classification into a predatory category or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found that some specific characteristics such as distorted images and grammatical errors are more prominent in PP dental journals.

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.

Avoiding predatory publishing for early career neurosurgeons: what should you know before you submit?

BACKGROUND

Scientific research can offer the joy of discovery. For many graduating neurosurgeons, often, a seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and only formal exposure to the world of conducting research responsibly, to write down and report the results of such research. The pressure to publish scientific research is high, but any young neurosurgeon who is unaware of how predatory publishers operate can get duped by it and can lose their valuable and hard-fought research. Hence, we have attempted to provide an overview of all potentially predatory neurosurgery publications and provide some "red flags" to recognize them.

METHODS

A suspected list of predatory publications was collected via a thorough review of the Neurosurgery journals listed in 4 major so-called blacklists, i.e., Beall's list, Manca's list, Cabell's blacklist, and Strinzel blacklist and then cross-referenced with UGC CARE whitelist to remove any potential legitimate journals. All journals with a scope of the Neurosurgery publication were searched using terms in the search bar: "Neurosurgery", "Neuroanatomy", "Neuropathology", and "Neurological disorder/disease". Since all predatory journals claim to be open access, all possible types of open access journals on Scimago were also searched, and thus a comparison was possible in terms of publication cost and number of legitimate open access journals when compared with predatory ones. In addition, methodologies by which these journals penetrate legitimate indexes like PubMed was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 46 predatory journals were found and were enlisted along with their publishers and web addresses. Sixty of the 360 Neurosurgery journals listed on Scimago were open access and the fee for the predatory journals was substantially lower (< $150) when compared with legitimate journals ($900-$3000). Six types of open access types exist while a total of 26 red flags in 7 stages of publication can be found in predatory journals. These journals have penetrated indexes by having similar names to legitimate journals and by publishing articles with external funding which mandate their indexing.

CONCLUSION

These 46 journals were defined as predatory by 4 major blacklists, and none of them was found in the UGC Care white list. They also fulfill the 26 red-flags that define a predatory journal. The blacklist detailed here may become redundant; hence "whenever in doubt" regarding a journal with "red-flags", the authors are advised to refer to whitelists to be on the safer side. Publishing in predatory journals leads to not only loss of valuable research but also discredits a researcher among his peers and can be hindrance in career progression. Some journals are even indexed on PubMed, and they have sophisticated webpages and high-quality online presentations.

A Solution to Academic Radiology's Experience With Solicitation E-mails From Predatory Journals

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to help academic researchers avoid predatory publishers by characterizing the problem with respect to radiology and medical imaging and to test an intervention to address aggressive e-mail solicitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In total, 803 faculty from 10 U.S. academic radiology departments and 193 faculty in the senior author's department were surveyed about their experiences with soliciting journals. To document the characteristics of these journals and their publishers, we retrospectively reviewed the academic institutional e-mail box of one radiologist over 51 days. Journals' bibliometric parameters were compared with those of established medical imaging journals offering open access publishing. We tested filters for selected syntax to identify spam e-mails during two time periods. RESULTS. Of 996 faculty, 206 responded (16% nationally, 42% locally). Most (98%) received e-mails from soliciting publishers. Only 7% published articles with these publishers. Submission reasons were invitations, fee waivers, and difficulty publishing elsewhere. Overall, 94 publishers sent 257 e-mails in 51 days, 50 of which offered publishing opportunities in 76 imaging journals. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, and two had verifiable impact factors. The six PubMed-indexed journals had a lower mean publication fee ($824) than top medical imaging journals ($3034) (p < 0.001) and had a shorter mean duration of existence (9.5 vs 49.0 years, respectively; p = 0.005). The e-mail filters captured 71% of soliciting e-mails during the initial 51-day period and 85% during the same period 1 year later. CONCLUSION. Soliciting publishers have little impact on scientific literature. Academicians can avoid soliciting e-mails with customized e-mail filters.

Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted.

RESULTS

Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool.

CONCLUSION

There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Most Common Publication Types of Neuroimaging Literature: Papers With High Levels of Evidence Are on the Rise

Objective: This study evaluated the bibliometric data of the most common publication types of the neuroimaging literature.

Methods: PubMed was searched to identify all published papers with “neuroimaging” as their MeSH Major Topics, and they were further searched by the following publication types: case report, clinical trial, comparative study, editorial, evaluation study, guideline, meta-analysis, multicenter study, randomized controlled trial, review, technical report, and validation study. The proportion of papers belonging to each publication type published in neuroimaging journals was calculated. Year-adjusted mean citation counts for each publication type were computed using data from Web of Science. Publication trend and its correlation with citation performance were assessed.

Results: Review and comparative study were the most common publication types. Publication types with the highest proportion in neuroimaging journals were guideline, validation study, and technical reports. Since the year 2000, multicenter study, review, and meta-analysis showed the strongest linear increase in annual publication count. These publication types also had the highest year-adjusted citation counts (4.7–10.0). Publication types with the lowest year-adjusted citation counts were editorial and case report (0.5–1.0). It was estimated that 12.5% of the publications labeled as case reports were incorrectly labeled.

Conclusions: Neuroimaging literature has been expanding with papers of higher levels of evidence, such as meta-analyses, multicenter studies, and randomized controlled trials.

Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey

Introduction

Predatory 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.

Methods

An online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019.

Results

One 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).

Conclusions

The 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.

Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding

In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003–2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority–or experience level–of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.

Teaching Nursing Students and Nurses About Predatory Publishing

BACKGROUND

All nurses, not just nurse authors, must be aware of the problems and concerns of predatory publishing practices. This is an important topic for nurse educators.

METHOD

Nurse educators must teach nursing students and nurses about the differences between reputable nursing journals and those produced by predatory publishers. Although there are several differences between reputable and predatory nursing journals, the lack of adequate peer review is an important problem. An active teaching strategy is provided that nurse educators may use to facilitate learning about reputable and predatory nursing journals.

RESULTS

Nursing students and nurses will be able to assess a journal for features that suggest the publication is reputable or one that may be produced by a predatory publisher.

CONCLUSION

Nurse educators should teach nursing students and nurses about predatory publishing practices so they can begin to use appropriate discretion when searching for evidence that informs patient care. [J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(11):627-631.].

Predatory journals: Do not judge journals by their Editorial Board Members

Objective: Given that often the quality of journals is based on its editors, the objective of this study was to describe quantitatively the profiles of members of editorial boards (MEBs) of presumed predatory journals. Methods: The following information was retrieved from 1015 editors taken from journals listed in Beall's list: country, university, position, and degree. The Scopus website was used to identify the number of citations, documents, and h-index. Results: Presumed open access predatory journals are including all types of profiles as their MEBs, which include fake and unqualified editors, but mostly very high-qualified scientists who are professors, medical doctors and/or had a PhD. MEBs were located in 74 different countries, most had an affiliation in the United States of America (USA) (44.4%). The median of publications per editor was 43, number of citations 664 and h-index 14. Conclusions: The results dispute the common belief that it is possible to identify predatory journals by checking their editorial boards. Scientists should not rely on the editors to determine if a journal is predatory. If an author has doubt, the editors should be contacted.

Predatory journals and dubious publishers: how to avoid being their prey

Open access publishing has a dark side, the predatory publishers and journals that exist for revenue rather than scholarly activity. This article helps researchers to: (1) identify some of the commonly used tactics and characteristics of predatory publishing; and (2) avoid falling prey to them. In summary, authors should choose the journal for submission themselves and never respond to unsolicited emails. It is also important to check blacklists such as ‘Stop Predatory Journals’ and whitelists such the Directory of Open Access Journals.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article, readers should be able to do the following: •

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

S.K. is on the editorial board of BJPsych International. He also receives five to ten spam emails a day from predatory journals and publishers.

Questioning the efficacy of predatory journals' blacklists

We question whether blacklists are the best answer to the serious problem of predatory journals. In conjunction with the worrying recent rise in the number of predatory journals, a remarkable number of blacklists have been compiled for specific scientific fields. However, predatory journals are continuously changing names and publishers; they are set up to make easy money and buried shortly after. Predatory journals have such a rapidly evolving nature that it is hard to keep track of them and keep blacklists up to date. We therefore propose a focus on ‘whitelists’ and directories of virtuous journals rather than on blacklists of pseudo-journals. We suggest that a set of criteria be determined that journals have to meet to be qualify as legitimate. In addition, the scientific community should come up with strategies to close the established biomedical databases to predatory journals, thus preventing them from achieving global exposure.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services

Objective

PubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape.

Methods

The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.

Results

Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.

Conclusion

The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

Predatory Publishing in Orthopaedic Research

BACKGROUND

The open-access model has changed the landscape of academic publishing over the last 20 years. An unfortunate consequence has been the advent of predatory publishing, which exploits the open-access model for monetary gain by collecting publishing fees from authors under the pretense of being a legitimate publication while providing little-to-no peer review. This study aims to investigate the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthopaedic literature.

METHODS

We searched Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and another list of predatory journals for journal titles that are possibly related to orthopaedics. We then searched their web sites for the following information: total number of articles published, journal country of origin, author country of origin, article processing charge (APC), quoted review time, and location of the listed headquarters. We also reported the article quality of a random sample of these journals. We consulted InCites Journal Citation Reports to determine the number of nonpredatory orthopaedic publications that are indexed, and we manually searched a random sample of these legitimate journals for Beall's criteria. Additionally, we searched the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed databases for any possible predatory journal titles.

RESULTS

We found 104 suspected predatory publishers, representing 225 possible predatory journals. One journal was indexed in the DOAJ, and 20 were indexed in PubMed. Review time was not identified for 56.2% of the journals, and 36.5% quoted a review time of <1 month. Nearly half of the listed addresses of the publishers were either unsearchable or led to residential or empty lots. Eighty-two legitimate journals were identified. The median APC was $420 for predatory journals and $2,900 for legitimate journals. We found that a random sample of the legitimate journals published studies with higher reporting standards, but a few also contained 1 criterion that is found on Beall's list.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the scope of orthopaedic predatory publishing. Possibly predatory journals outnumber legitimate orthopaedic journals. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the suspected predatory journals and consult available online tools to identify them because distinguishing them from legitimate journals can be a challenge.