Kscien's list; a new strategy to hoist predatory journals and publishers

Kakamad, Fahmi H.; Mohammed, Shvan H.; Najar, Kayhan A.; Qadr, Goran A.; Ahmed, Jaafar O.; Mohammed, Karukh K.; Salih, Rawezh Q.; Hassan, Marwan N.; Mikael, Tomas M.; Kakamad, Suhaib H.; Baba, Hiwa O.; Aziz, Masrur S.; Rahim, Hawbash M.; Ahmmad, Dlshad R.; Hussein, Dahat A.; Ali, Rebwar A.; Hammood, Zuhair D.; Essa, Rawand Abdulrahman; Hassan, Hunar A.

doi:10.1016/j.ijso.2019.01.002

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authors should first note that it is rare for reputed journals and those indexed in Medline or DOAJ to send personalised invitations to prospective authors inviting manuscript submission. Some journals may request reviewers to write a commentary or editorial on the article that they have reviewed (8). Authors should follow the principle of to make their own decision regarding the legitimacy of the journal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An analysis of invitations for article submission received via emails

Bavdekar¹,

Saha²,

Thatte³

et al. 2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predatory journals charge publication fees from authors and publish without an adequate peer review, and often do not provide editorial and/or publishing services. Our objective was to evaluate e-mail solicitations received by authors in a defined time period to identify attributes of these solicitations as a metric to identify legitimacy of the journal. All e-mails seeking article submission received between January 1 and September 30, 2019, were evaluated. Each e-mail along with its respective webpage was evaluated for the journal’s and publisher’s names, mention of peer review, any assurance of publication, a mention of article processing charges (APC), composite invites [in the e-mail] and mention of peer review, the presence and functionality of archives, presence of manuscript management tab, mention of APC [on the webpage]. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis. Of the 135 e-mails screened, 100 were finally included in the analysis. We found that 72% of the journals and/ or publishers were included in Beall’s list. According to our criteria, a total of 85% of the solicitations were from journals that we identified as “presumed predatory”. Our study has identified assurance of publication, rapid turnaround time, ambiguous information in the email and webpage, false claims of indexing as some descriptors which may help young authors and researchers assess a journal’s legitimacy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This list is periodically updated and the last update of the list was in March 2021. Others have also put forward criteria to help identify predatory journals (5,6,7,8).…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of invitations for article submission received via emails

Bavdekar¹,

Saha²,

Thatte³

et al. 2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beall's list had been used in these studies because identifying predatory journals is difficult and timeconsuming, not least because predatory journals exist on a spectrum, and there is no single collection of factors that will identify a predatory journal without fail. For much of the last decade, Beall's list was also the only major curated list of predatory journalsother lists, such as Cabell's (paywalled) and Kscien's now exist, but none have yet reached the level of familiarity or notoriety that Beall's list possessed [41,42]. It is reasonable to suggest that the limited number of studies conducted on predatory journals has been in part because of the difficulty of defining predatory journals as a concept, and more specifically, because of the difficulties associated with identifying specific predatory journals to study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian Academics’ use of predatory journals

Babb

2021

J Can Health Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian Universities. Methods Articles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles. Results All universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size. Discussion Canadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This exploratory suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, there are several journals and publishers that proved to be legitimate later that were mistakenly enlisted by Beall such as Frontiers and International Journal of Electrochemical Science . [3] The current recommendation is to use Kscien list which is a daily updating blacklist of Kscien Organization For Scientific Research. [3] A quick search in the Kscien list of predatory standalone journals showed more titles (22 vs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3] The current recommendation is to use Kscien list which is a daily updating blacklist of Kscien Organization For Scientific Research. [3] A quick search in the Kscien list of predatory standalone journals showed more titles (22 vs. 21).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%