Abstract:Background
Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.
Methods
In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the Germ… Show more
“…Various factors can account for deciding where researchers choose to publish findings (Niles et al, 2020), including pressure by institutions (Alamri et al, 2020; Cobey et al, 2019; Kurt, 2018), social identity threat, unawareness, lack of proficiency (Kurt, 2018), promises of a fast publication (Salehi et al, 2020), and impact factors and indexing in databases (Nicholas et al, 2017). These factors, combined with naivety from ECRs, authors, and even editors on the concept of predatory publishers (Alamri et al, 2020; Christopher & Young, 2015; Cohen et al, 2019; Maurer et al, 2021) and an array of tactics and features employed by predatory publishers (Memon, 2018) can result in continued submission to such predatory publishers.…”
Predatory publishersthose who do not adhere to rigorous standards of academic practice such as peer revieware increasingly infiltrating biomedical databases, to the detriment of the wider scientific community. These publishers frequently send unsolicited 'spam' emails to generate submission to their journals, with early career researchers (ECR) particularly susceptible to these practices because of pressures such as securing employment and promotion. This analysis sought to record and characterise the emails received over the course of a PhD and postdoctoral position (~8 years), as well as attempts to unsubscribe from such emails, using a progressive and step-wise manner. A total of 1280 emails identified as academic spam were received (990 journal invitations, 220 conference invitations, 70 'other'). The first email was received three months after registration for an international conference. Attempts at unsubscribing were somewhat effective, whereby implications of reporting to respective authorities resulted in a 43% decrease in emails, although did not eliminate them completely, and therefore alternative approaches to eliminating academic spam may be needed. Ongoing education about predatory publishers, as well as action by key academic stakeholders, should look to reduce the impact these predatory publishers have upon the wider literature base.
“…Various factors can account for deciding where researchers choose to publish findings (Niles et al, 2020), including pressure by institutions (Alamri et al, 2020; Cobey et al, 2019; Kurt, 2018), social identity threat, unawareness, lack of proficiency (Kurt, 2018), promises of a fast publication (Salehi et al, 2020), and impact factors and indexing in databases (Nicholas et al, 2017). These factors, combined with naivety from ECRs, authors, and even editors on the concept of predatory publishers (Alamri et al, 2020; Christopher & Young, 2015; Cohen et al, 2019; Maurer et al, 2021) and an array of tactics and features employed by predatory publishers (Memon, 2018) can result in continued submission to such predatory publishers.…”
Predatory publishersthose who do not adhere to rigorous standards of academic practice such as peer revieware increasingly infiltrating biomedical databases, to the detriment of the wider scientific community. These publishers frequently send unsolicited 'spam' emails to generate submission to their journals, with early career researchers (ECR) particularly susceptible to these practices because of pressures such as securing employment and promotion. This analysis sought to record and characterise the emails received over the course of a PhD and postdoctoral position (~8 years), as well as attempts to unsubscribe from such emails, using a progressive and step-wise manner. A total of 1280 emails identified as academic spam were received (990 journal invitations, 220 conference invitations, 70 'other'). The first email was received three months after registration for an international conference. Attempts at unsubscribing were somewhat effective, whereby implications of reporting to respective authorities resulted in a 43% decrease in emails, although did not eliminate them completely, and therefore alternative approaches to eliminating academic spam may be needed. Ongoing education about predatory publishers, as well as action by key academic stakeholders, should look to reduce the impact these predatory publishers have upon the wider literature base.
“…DOAJ (https://doaj.org/) has existed since 2003 and is an independent database of 16,000+ open access journals. The journals are assessed according to a set of criteria (Olijhoek et al, 2015) and is being used to identify non‐predatory journals (Gallo et al, 2022; Maurer et al, 2021). Numerous examples of safe lists are available (Koerber et al, 2020, p. 3).…”
Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The prolific literature regarding terminology and definitions (Mertkan, Onurkan Aliusta, & Suphi, 2021) is not ideal which is also why a definition of these predatory behaviours is called for (Aromataris & Stern, 2020; Callaghan & Nicholson, 2020). Grudniewicz et al (2019, p. 211) present a consensus definition:Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self‐interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.A number of recent studies show that knowledge as well as awareness of predatory journals tends to be low across disciplines and academic positions (AlRyalat et al, 2019; Atiso et al, 2019; Cohen et al, 2019; Kinde, 2021; Maurer et al, 2021; Richtig et al, 2019; Wang et al, 2021). On the other hand, other studies find that faculty are aware and recognize predatory journals as a problem (Owolabi et al, 2020; Swanberg et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of recent studies show that knowledge as well as awareness of predatory journals tends to be low across disciplines and academic positions (AlRyalat et al, 2019;Atiso et al, 2019;Cohen et al, 2019;Kinde, 2021;Maurer et al, 2021;Richtig et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2021). On the other hand, other studies find that faculty are aware and recognize predatory journals as a problem (Owolabi et al, 2020;Swanberg et al, 2020).…”
Scholars engage with so-called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs and the possibility of fast track faculty positions or promotion. It has been claimed that fast tracking promotion by using predatory publication outlets is an increasing problem. This study analyses the authors publishing in predatory journals with a focus on authors repeatedly publishing in predatory journals. In this study, a set of so-called predatory journals indexed in Scopus was used. The data included 243,396 authorships of articles and reviews published from 2004 to 2021 by 169,742 unique authors.This study finds that 55% of the authors publish in one of these journals only once, 34.5% publish 2-5 times in these journals, 6.3% publish in them 6-10 times, and 4.2% publish more than 10 times. Furthermore, this study finds that the mean and median number of articles and reviews is correlated with the number of articles and reviews in predatory journals. Finally, authors publishing in predatory journals do not confine themselves to these journals and also publish in validated journals as well.
“…1 A recent survey showed that only 40% of orthopaedic and trauma surgeons were aware of predatory journals, with the younger surgeons less familiar than their older cohorts. 2 Solicitation for these journals typically occurs in 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, often for a nonsubstantial publication fee.…”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
