Caution with Journal Selection: Spam, Copycat Journals, and Predatory Publishing
Abstract
Abstract Views: 0
The modern scholarly journal is currently faced with the challenge of upholding its principles in order to attract a continuous stream of authors to maintain its publishing status. Further, it also needs to be weary of unscrupulous players (including competitors) lurking in the global knowledge stream that pose an existential threat by diverting academics away from legitimate journals using underhanded or unfair practices, such as the use of spam or journals that employ copycat names. It is not always easy to distinguish predatory from exploitative journals, or underhanded from unfair practices, and even the use of or reliance on publishing blacklists does not offer potential authors a safe selection of journals to publish in. Authors and journals thus live in a volatile publishing environment in which they are confronted with constant threats. In biomedicine, these can translate into reputational damage to the journal and publisher if fake science or pseudoscience is published, since it puts at stake the journal’s reliability for biomedical information. For authors, particularly younger or less experienced ones whose careers depend on publishing advances, a mistake such as making a submission to a hijacked or copycat journal that impersonates the original journal may carry long-term negative reputational consequences. So, such a decision can be career altering.
Downloads
References
Niles MT, Schimanski LA, McKiernan EC, Alperin JP. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0228914. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0228914
Heron M, Gravett K, Yakovchuk N. Publishing and flourishing: Writing for desire in higher education. Higher Edu Res Dev. 2021;40(3):538–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.202 0.1773770
Björk B-C. Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey. El Prof Inf. 2018;28(4):e280407. https://doi.org/ 10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07
Niemczyk EK, Rónay Z. Roles, requirements and autonomy of academic researchers. Higher Ed Quart. 2023;77(2):327–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12403
Frandsen TF. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publ. 2019;32(1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214
Ioannidis JPA, Pezzullo AM, Boccia S. The rapid growth of mega-journals: Threats and opportunities. JAMA. 2023;329(15):1253–1254. https:// doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.3212
Teixeira da Silva JA, Moradzadeh M, Adjei KOK, Owusu-Ansah CM, Balehegn M, Faúndez EI, et al. An integrated paradigm shift to deal with “predatory” publishing. J Acad Libr. 2022;48(1):e102481. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481
Manley S. On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci-Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University. Learn Publ. 2019;32(4):375–381. https://doi.org /10.1002/leap.1254
Yamada Y, Teixeira da Silva JA. A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Qual & Quant. 2022;56(6):4075–4087. https://doi.org /10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. J Acad Libr. 2019;45(6):e102071. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071
Paul C, Brady DM. Pseudoscientific and unhealthy approaches to gastrointestinal health and detoxification in natural medicine. Integr Med. 2023;22(1):26–29.
Naeem SB, Bhatti R, Khan A. An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk. Health Info Libr J. 2021;38(2):143–149. https://doi.org /10.1111/hir.12320
Chavda VP, Sonak SS, Munshi NK, Dhamade PN. Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29(42):62887–62912. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-022-21967-4
Siler K. Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2020;71(11):1386–1401. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.24339 15. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Tsigaris P. Spam emails in academia: Issues and costs. Scientometrics. 2020;122(2):1171–1181. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-019-03315-5
Teixeira da Silva JA, Moradzadeh M, Yamada Y, Dunleavy DJ, Tsigaris P. Cabells’ Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions. J Acad Libr. 2023;49(1):e102659. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659
Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P. Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. J Acad Libr. 2020;46:102070. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070
Abalkina A. Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics. 2021;126(8):71237148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192021-04056-0
Teixeira da Silva JA. Copycats and impostors in science publishing: The case of Current Science. Curr Sci. 2017;113(5):834–834.
Moradzadeh M, Sedghi S, Panahi S. Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: A scoping review. Scientometrics. 2023;128(1):279–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-02204520-5
Copyright (c) 2024 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
BSR follows an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed the Copyright and Author Consent Form.
