Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Dissemination of clinical and scientific practice through social media: a SIAARTI consensus-based document

BACKGROUND

Dissemination of medical practice and scientific information through social media (SoMe) by clinicians and researchers is increasing. Broad exposure of information can promote connectivity within the scientific community, overcome barriers to access to sources, increase debate, and reveal layperson perspectives and preferences. On the other hand, practices lacking scientific evidence may also be promoted, laypeople may misunderstand the professional message, and clinician may suffer erosion of professional status. The aim of this project was to enhance awareness and advise the anesthesia community and clinicians at large about the potential risks advocate for responsible use of SoMe to disseminate information related to medical practices and knowledge.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process with prespecified consensus criteria was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of experts, including anesthesiologists-intensivists, clinical psychologists, and forensic medicine specialists. Six items were identified: Ethics and deontological principles, the practice of sharing information via social media, legal aspects, psychological aspects, self-promotion, and criteria for appropriate dissemination. Statements and rationales were produced and subjected to blinded panelists' votes. After reaching consensus, a document was written which then underwent external review by experts uninvolved in the consensus process. The project was promoted by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).

RESULTS

Twelve statements were produced, and consensus was achieved for all. The panel concluded that the general principles guiding dissemination of professional information via SoMe must remain in line with the general principles of ethics, deontology, and scientific validity that guide the medical profession and science in general. Professional equity must be maintained while communicating via SoMe. Medical practices lacking support by scientific evidence should not be disseminated. Patients' informed consent must be obtained before dissemination of information, images, or data. Self-promotion must not be prioritized over any of these principles.

CONCLUSIONS

When sharing medical practices and scientific information on SoMe, healthcare professionals are advised to act conscientiously and ethically. Local regulations should be adhered to. Institutional training on the potential risks and proper of SoMe for such purpose may contribute to preservation of professional integrity.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

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.

Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically map the scholarly literature on predatory conferences and describe the present state of research and the prevalent attitudes about these conferences.

METHODS

This scoping review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection). In addition, the included studies' reference lists were scanned for additional papers not found in the searches. Peer-reviewed publications were included irrespective of study design. Letters and commentary were included if they were peer reviewed. Editorials and literature reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

From 809 initial publications, 20 papers were included in the review, from 12 countries and covered a wide range of science disciplines, from nursing/medicine to energy/technology and computer science. More than half were empirical and published after 2017. In most papers, a definition of the term predatory conferences was put forward. Spam email invitations with flattering language were the most common characteristics, and the conferences were often hosted by unknown organisations that used copied pictures without permission. High fees, lack of peer review, and a multidisciplinary scope were signal features. All papers explicitly or implicitly suggested possible reasons for participating in predatory conferences. Some reasons were related to the overall context of academic work, the nature of predatory conferences (eg, researchers falling prey to misleading information about a conference or choosing a conference based on an attractive location) and the personal characteristics of researchers. Only one paper reported empirically identified reasons for participating in predatory conferences. The three countermeasures proposed most frequently to deal with predatory conferences were increasing education, emphasising responsibilities of universities and funders, and publishing lists of predatory publishers associated with conferences.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a scarcity of research concerning predatory conferences. Future empirical as well as fully analytical research should be encouraged by funders, journals and research institutions.

Research and academic output evaluation for career initiation or progression: Critical issues for Health Professionals

In current times, much stress is being laid on the evaluation of research productivity of researchers or faculty in addition to the academic qualifications and experience for the purposes of recruitment, promotion, and research grant funding. Over the years, several quantitative indices have been devised for this purpose. Some of these indices such as h-index, impact factor and e-index are being extensively used by research organizations, universities, accreditation bodies and funding agencies for basic scientists as well as health professionals. In the absence of any formal training, these parameters or their advantages and shortcomings may not be well understood by the health professionals, especially in the early stages of their careers and sometimes, even by the evaluators. A big unanswered question is the validity of the same criteria for health professionals as are applicable for the basic science researchers. Since health professional undertaking research assignments are neither adequately trained in basic research nor can they comprehend these indices well, the same yardstick to evaluate these two widely different groups of researchers often places the health professionals at a disadvantage.This paper aims to highlight certain vital issues related to the application of research productivity indicators for recruitment and career progression of health care professionals.

Study of the Causes and Consequences of Cloned Journal Publications

Cloned journals develop a mirror image of reputed journals and attract more articles than predatory journals. Journal of Positive School Psychology (JPSP) is one such Scopus indexed journal that has been cloned and used as a case study for this article. JPSP (cloned journal) has published over 3,000 articles in its last four issues (2nd to 5th) of 2022. Volume 6 No.2 (2022) is of 6,302 pages, Volume 6 No.3 (2022) is of 10,210 pages, Volume 6 No.4 (2022) is of 11,881 pages, and Volume 6 No.5 (2022) is of 4,335 pages. While the Society of Psychology and Education publishes the genuine JPSP journal, its cloned version is published by ASR Research India. We surveyed cloned JPSP authors worldwide, 512 to be precise, to investigate the causes and consequences of cloned journal publications. Pressure to publish articles in Scopus indexed journals, quick publication, ease in publication, and difficulty detecting a cloned journal, are some of the multiple causes that have led authors to publish in the cloned journals. It was interesting to note that despite the JPSP authors knowing that they have published in a cloned journal and its consequences, they wish to take the publication forward and earn academic credits. Suggestions have been offered to curb such publications.

To Decline or Accept: A Guide for Determining the Legitimacy of Academic Conference Invitations

IMPORTANCE

After the rise of predatory journals characterized by false claims of legitimacy and a pay-to-publish model, similar "predatory conferences" have become increasingly common. The email inbox of an academic physician can be filled with daily announcements encouraging conference attendance, abstract submission, and often panel or keynote speaker invitations. It therefore becomes important for the plastic surgeon to be able to discern whether these invitations are from "predatory" conferences or legitimate career advancement opportunities, especially early in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To aid the invited physician in determining the legitimacy of a conference, we aimed to characterize objective features of conferences for which email invitations have been received and use this information to build a decision-making guide.

DESIGN

We analyzed all conference invitations received by the email of one academic plastic surgeon in a 4-month period. These conferences were organized into 3 groups based on affiliation with known professional societies. The following information was collected if available: affiliation with a professional society, type of invitation, conference location, conference format (in-person, virtual, or hybrid), conference title, conference fees, conference organizer, associated journals or publishers, abstract journal submission, grammar, headshots, time to abstract review, and acceptance.

RESULTS

There were 56 unique conference invitations. These were categorized into 15 affiliated conferences, 28 unaffiliated conferences, and 17 conferences of undetermined affiliation. Unaffiliated conferences were more likely to solicit speaker invitations ( P < 0.001), claim to be "international" ( P = 0.001), send emails with grammatical errors ( P < 0.001), use unprofessional headshots on the conference Web site ( P < 0.001), and have reduced virtual conference fees ( P = 0.0032) as compared with conferences affiliated with known professional societies. When comparing the attendance and presenter fees of in-person venues, there was no significant difference between affiliated and unaffiliated conferences ( P = 0.973, P = 0.604). Affiliated conferences were more likely to take place in the United States ( P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We present a method to quickly assess the legitimacy of an academic meeting by way of a few important questions. Based on our findings, emails soliciting conference speakers, claims of international presence, grammatical errors, unprofessional headshots, and reduced virtual conference fees are all characteristics that should raise red flags.

Autoethnography on Researcher Profile Cultivation

Information Communication Technology (ICT) and social networks have significant impact on everyday life. One the one hand, Internet users enjoy promoting themselves and feel free to disseminate information about themselves through websites and social networks, but on the other hand, people feel forced to reveal information about them on the Internet. Web technologies enable self-promotion for many reasons, i.e., social relations development, acquiring a new job, or research career support. This paper concerns autoethnography application for social science researcher profile cultivation. Autoethnography belongs to qualitative methods and focuses on deep analysis of experiences and competencies in a narrative way. In this study, autoethnography is self-reflection for personal development strategy. This study methodology includes the literature survey and case study. The Literature Survey (LS) on autoethnographic research is included to answer the question for what purposes autoethnography is applied. In the case study, the author proposes to expand autoethnography and presents that beyond stories, statistical data can be used to reveal researcher’s experiences and personality, and data anonymization is a solution for privacy protection in autoethnographic research. The results indicate that perception of individual profile is significantly influenced by ICT, Internet services, and social networks platforms and portals. Contemporary researchers are evaluated by Web statistical measures. The researcher’s profiling is much more complex and statistical measures and metrics provide a general view of the researcher. Application of statistical measures leads to concluding on general competencies of the researcher and precludes a deep focus on local scientific specificity of the researcher. This paper has added value because of presenting the academic community integration with the Internet social networks, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, or SciVal. The paper emphasizes transparency and visibility of researchers’ profiles, as well as the necessity to analyze their activities and publications in academic community context and in comparisons with others.

Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this “parasitic” publishing model

The emergence of the Internet has transformed all areas of society. This includes the universe of scientific publications, with several publishers now exclusively focusing on the electronic format and open access model while expanding to a megajournal scope. In this context, the pandemic of predatory open access journals (POAJs) and meetings are of grave concern to the academic and research community. This new shift within academia produces a variety of new victims; namely, the authors themselves. In turn, scientific knowledge is often discredited, with the public placing less trust in science. Now more than ever, performing research with integrity and selecting a journal in which to publish requires close attention and expertise. The “predatory movement” has developed increasingly sophisticated techniques for misleading people into believing what seem to be credible professional layouts and legitimate invitations. Initiatives such as the Jeffrey Beall’s list, the Cabell’s Scholarly Analytics and Think.Check.Submit offer some guidance to uncover the “parasitic” intervention of predatory journals and meetings, but specific education in this field is sorely needed. This work aims to review the main characteristics of predatory journals and meetings and to analyze this topic in the context of forensic and legal medicine research.

Predatory Conferences: Calling for Vigilance From Ophthalmologists and Vision Scientists

PURPOSE

To describe the newer predatory movement within academia: predatory conferences and its associated characteristics.

DESIGN

Perspective METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic RESULTS: Although ophthalmology and vision science are often spared from falling prey to predatory organizations, it is important for scientists of all levels, from trainees to senior faculty, to be aware of the existence of for-profit conferences and their characteristics.

CONCLUSION

We discuss the details of predatory conferences and provide resources to help identify such meetings for all scientists and professionals.

Predatory Journals- The Power of the Predator Versus the Integrity of the Honest

Over the last few decades, the authenticity and confidence of scientific work from around the world has been systematically corrupted by predatory journals and their affiliated publication houses. These journals predominantly prey on both aspiring and established academics and researchers from around the world, but primarily on individuals from developing countries, by aggressively soliciting manuscripts for a nominal publication fee without providing a robust editorial service or peer review system and ultimately promising fast track publication in a few days to weeks. Such journals may also diminish the opportunity for authors in developing countries from getting their original work published in legitimate journals. A majority of the work published in these pseudo journals aside from being incorrect and mundane, provide no advancement to science. But more importantly, the negative impact of these journals can have direct implications on patient health care and research.

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.

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.