Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science

Abstract

This article highlights the issue of wasteful publishing practices that primarily affect non-mainstream science countries and rapidly growing academic disciplines. Numerous start-up open access publishers with soft or nonexistent quality checks and huge commercial interests have created a global crisis in the publishing market. Their publishing practices have been thoroughly examined, leading to the blacklisting of many journals by Jeffrey Beall. However, it appears that some subscription journals are also falling short of adhering to the international recommendations of global editorial associations. Unethical editing agencies that promote their services in non-mainstream science countries create more problems for inexperienced authors. It is suggested to regularly monitor the quality of already indexed journals and upgrade criteria of covering new sources by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, and specialist bibliographic databases. Regional awareness campaigns to inform stakeholders of science communication about the importance of ethical writing, transparency of editing services, and permanent archiving can be also helpful for eradicating unethical publishing practices.

Predator in the Pool? A Quantitative Evaluation of Non-indexed Open Access Journals in Aquaculture Research

“…et al, 2015; Seethapathy et al, 2016;Balehegn, 2017;Gasparyan et al, 2017). It thus seems that many aquaculture researchers from these regions are spending a fair proportion of their limited financial resources on publishing in likely predatory OA journals, when such resources can be used in more effective ways (e.g., increasing research infrastructure, publishing in high quality open access journals, hiring staff).…”

“…Furthermore, predatory OA journals can provide an outlet for the publication of research from nations that are often excluded (intentionally or not) from Western publishing outlets. Indeed it is reported that the majority of authors publishing in these journals are researchers in developing nations who could better use their funds to stimulate research activities or publish in nonpredatory open access journals (Shen and Björk, 2015;Xia et al, 2015;Seethapathy et al, 2016;Balehegn, 2017;Gasparyan et al, 2017). Consequently, predatory publishing practices threaten the institution of science, undermine legitimate open access journals, and hinder progression of the utilitarian concept of open science on a global scale.…”

Response to: Schira, H. R., & Hurst, C. (2019). Hype or Real Threat: The Extent of Predatory Journals in Student Bibliographies. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 14(1).

“…The implications of these metrics are often framed in such a manner as to appear to guarantee a wave of poor quality articles threatening to engulf the very fabric of research and science (Beall, 2016(Beall, , 2017Gasparyan et al, 2017;Johal et al, 2017;Revés et al, 2018;Shen & Björk, 2015). Few commentators have voiced a contrary opinion (see Bell, 2017 for an example of an author that is less damning of predatory publishers).…”

Predatory Publishing: What It Is and How to Avoid It and Its Negative Effects

“…1 ) In 2008, he began creating his own list of predatory publishers, which has been known as Beall's List. 2 ) Since then, predatory publishers have increased, especially in countries such as India, where there is a greater need, ability and personnel able to publish quickly for academics who wish to earn tenure or promotion.…”

“…2) 3) 4) 1) Assistant Professor, Department of International Medical Communications, Tokyo Medical University 2) Emeritus Professor, Tokyo Medical University 3) Council Member, COPE 4) Adjunct Professor, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Today there is tremendous pressure to publish scientific articles. This is a particular problem for non-native speakers of English whose research may be excellent but who have difficulty in expressing themselves in a style favored by the reviewers of their target journal.…”