Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

RESULTS

Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews

The Journal Impact Factor is often used as a proxy measure for journal quality, but the empirical evidence is scarce. In particular, it is unclear how peer review characteristics for a journal relate to its impact factor. We analysed 10,000 peer review reports submitted to 1,644 biomedical journals with impact factors ranging from 0.21 to 74.7. Two researchers hand-coded sentences using categories of content related to the thoroughness of the review (Materials and Methods, Presentation and Reporting, Results and Discussion, Importance and Relevance) and helpfulness (Suggestion and Solution, Examples, Praise, Criticism). We fine-tuned and validated transformer machine learning language models to classify sentences. We then examined the association between the number and percentage of sentences addressing different content categories and 10 groups defined by the Journal Impact Factor. The median length of reviews increased with higher impact factor, from 185 words (group 1) to 387 words (group 10). The percentage of sentences addressing Materials and Methods was greater in the highest Journal Impact Factor journals than in the lowest Journal Impact Factor group. The results for Presentation and Reporting went in the opposite direction, with the highest Journal Impact Factor journals giving less emphasis to such content. For helpfulness, reviews for higher impact factor journals devoted relatively less attention to Suggestion and Solution than lower impact factor journals. In conclusion, peer review in journals with higher impact factors tends to be more thorough, particularly in addressing study methods while giving relatively less emphasis to presentation or suggesting solutions. Differences were modest and variability high, indicating that the Journal Impact Factor is a bad predictor of the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.

METHODS

All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

RESULTS

A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery

The prevalence of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery continues to increase. These journals directly solicit authors, offering the advantages of open access and quick publication rates. Solicitation typically occurs in the form of e-mail communications, and the targets are usually identified as authors who have published other works in conventional publications. These predatory journals process manuscripts without peer review and plagiarism checks and often for a substantial publication fee. As a result, the scientific value of these publications is grossly suspect and has been considered a substantial threat to the quality of scientific discourse and scholarship. This affects not only the layperson reading the works but also investigators tricked into publishing in these venues. It has been estimated that several million US dollars per year are spent on these publications and, in many instances, using monies granted by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. This review aims to study the types of solicitation, evaluate the increasing prevalence in orthopaedic surgery, and offer methods to authors and readers to identify these journals to mitigate their negative effects.

The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review

Publons was a peer reviewer rewards platform that aimed to recognize the contribution that academics made during peer review to a journal. For about 10 years of its existence, Publons became the most popular service among peer reviewers. Having gained traction and popularity, Publons was purchased in 2017 by Clarivate Analytics (now Clarivate), and many academics, journals and publishers invested time and effort to participate in Publons. Using Publons, various peer review-related experiments or pilot programs were initiated by some academic publishers regarding the introduction of open peer review into their journals’ editorial processes. In this paper, we examine pertinent literature related to Publons, and reflect on its benefits and flaws during its short-lived history. In mid-August 2022, Clarivate fused Publons into the Web of Science platform. Publons, as a brand peer review service, has now ceased to exist but some of the functionality remains in Web of Science while other aspects that used to be open and free at Publons are now paid-for services. We reflect on the effect of such experiments, which initially had bold and ambitious academic objectives to fortify peer review, on academics’ trust, especially when such projects become commercialized.

Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers

This study explores the publishing success of less experienced researchers including early career researchers in a selection of library and information science journals. The study includes all authors of articles and reviews published in 10 library and information science journals during a 20-year period (2001–2020). The prior publication of each author is determined at the time of publication in one of the ten journals. The analysis includes 14,612 publications and publication histories of 36,417 authors. The results show that there are considerable differences between journals, and that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time. Library automation journals publish considerably more publications by early career researchers than information science journals do. Publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience.