Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.

[1]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Choosing the Target Journal: Do Authors Need a Comprehensive Approach? , 2013, Journal of Korean medical science.

[2]  Dragan Djuric,et al.  Penetrating the Omerta of Predatory Publishing: The Romanian Connection , 2014, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[3]  Is open access sufficient? A review of the quality of open-access nursing journals. , 2015, International journal of mental health nursing.

[4]  Richard Smith,et al.  Firm action needed on predatory journals , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Wayne Bivens-Tatum Reactionary Rhetoric Against Open Access Publishing , 2014 .

[6]  Suhasini Sharma,et al.  How to Become a Competent Medical Writer? , 2010, Perspectives in clinical research.

[7]  N. Gogtay,et al.  Policy of reviewing statistics in Indian medical and surgical journals , 2013, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.

[8]  R. Bartholomew,et al.  Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals , 2014, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[9]  Karen H. Kaplan Publishing: A helping hand. , 2010, Nature.

[10]  David Moher,et al.  A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  J. Bohannon Who's afraid of peer review? , 2013, Science.

[12]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Predatory publishers are corrupting open access , 2012, Nature.

[13]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Predatory Publishers Threaten to Erode Scholarly Communication , 2013 .

[14]  Joshua A Hirsch,et al.  Medical journal peer review: process and bias. , 2015, Pain physician.

[15]  Claire Redhead,et al.  Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing , 2013 .

[16]  The Science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review , 2013, BMJ.

[17]  Miguel Roig Critical Issues in the Teaching of Responsible Writing , 2014, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[18]  Erik Cobo,et al.  Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial , 2007, PloS one.

[19]  S. Sohail Of predatory publishers and spurious impact factors. , 2014, Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP.

[20]  Cindy W. Hamilton Don’t Get Spooked! How to Collaborate with a Professional Medical Communicator (And Avoid Ghostwriting) , 2010, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis.

[21]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Charlotte Haug,et al.  The downside of open-access publishing. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Medical Publishing Triage – Chronicling Predatory Open Access Publishers , 2013, Annals of medicine and surgery.

[24]  Tom Hill Identifying legitimate open access journals: some suggestions from a publisher , 2015, Learn. Publ..

[25]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Open access: changing global science publishing , 2013, Croatian medical journal.

[26]  O. Dyer Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective , 2015, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[28]  J. Achten,et al.  An evaluation of the quality of statistical design and analysis of published medical research: results from a systematic survey of general orthopaedic journals , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[29]  Jingfeng Xia,et al.  Who publishes in “predatory” journals? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  Declan Butler,et al.  Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing , 2013, Nature.

[31]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Biomedical journal editing: elements of success , 2011, Croatian medical journal.

[32]  Edward Barroga,et al.  Cascading peer review for open-access publishing , 2013 .

[33]  L. Rikkers The Evolution and Future of Scientific Communication: American Surgical Association Presidential Address , 2014, Annals of surgery.

[34]  Mary Shultz,et al.  Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[35]  V. Conn Paying the Price for Open Access , 2015, Western Journal of Nursing Research.

[36]  K. Satyanarayana Journal publishing: the changing landscape , 2013, The Indian journal of medical research.

[37]  Eve Sweetser A helping hand , 2004, Nature.

[38]  Yi-Xiang J. Wang,et al.  Implications of Web of Science journal impact factor for scientific output evaluation in 16 institutions and investigators' opinion. , 2014, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery.

[39]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Familiarizing with science editors' associations , 2011, Croatian medical journal.

[40]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact , 2014, Croatian medical journal.

[41]  Niala Dwarika-Bhagat LibGuides: Predatory Publishing: Perspectives: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PREDATORY OPEN-ACCESS PUBLISHERS , 2016 .

[42]  A. Gasparyan Selecting Your Editorial Board: Maintaining Standards , 2013, Journal of Korean medical science.

[43]  B. Björk A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[44]  Ingegerd Rabow DOAJ announces new selection criteria , 2013 .

[45]  W H Waldo On "Improving Scientific Communication". , 1955, Science.

[46]  Jackie Marchington,et al.  Author attitudes to professional medical writing support , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.

[47]  Richard Van Noorden Open-access website gets tough , 2014, Nature.

[48]  Isidro F. Aguillo Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.

[49]  Martijn Arns,et al.  Open access is tiring out peer reviewers , 2014, Nature.

[50]  Anurag A Agrawal Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing. , 2014, Trends in plant science.

[51]  G. Maestroni,et al.  Honorary authors and unwitting: personal experience with a journal from a publisher included in the Beall's list of predatory publishers. , 2017 .

[52]  M. Kearney,et al.  Predatory publishing: what authors need to know. , 2015, Research in nursing & health.