Predatory publishers are corrupting open access

Beall, Jeffrey

doi:10.1038/489179a

Cited by 721 publications

(641 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

505

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed as OA becomes more favourable and popular, other databases and directories such as the Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central Ò may contain increasing numbers of key studies. However, in contrast, it should also be noted that sham journals have been set up to exploit authors using the openaccess model, either publishing work without quality checks or simply duping researchers into paying article processing fees on fraudulent websites [13,14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

Tahim

Bansal

Goodson

et al. 2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Open access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods We investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies. Results 3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals. Discussion These findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re-assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscriptiononly format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

Tahim

Bansal

Goodson

et al. 2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of active predatory journals has increased at an alarming rate 1 . By 2015, more than half a million papers had been published in predatory journals, and at the end of 2016, the number of predatory journals on Beall's list (about 10,000) approached the number indexed by the DOAJ and JCR 5 .…”

Section: Predators and Preymentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals recruit fake editor

Sorokowski

Kulczycki

Sorokowska

et al. 2017

Nature

201

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1,2 The likelihood is that this patient contracted the condition before she moved to Northern Ireland. We can find no previous reports of cysticercosis affecting the oral cavity being diagnosed in this country.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prison dentistry: Irish prisoners' oral health

Neville¹

2015

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predatory publishers are corrupting open access

Cited by 721 publications

References 0 publications

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

Predatory journals recruit fake editor

Prison dentistry: Irish prisoners' oral health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About