Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask

Introduction: Librarians and Predatory Publishing Librarians have a key role to play in educating users about predatory publishing. Predatory publishing can be described as low quality, amateurish, and often unethical academic publishing that is usually Open Access (OA). Understanding predatory publishing helps authors to make more informed decisions about where to publish. In the process of educating our users, librarians can set the ground for important conversations that encourage critical thinking about the scholarly communications process. Predatory publishing stems from broader problems including overemphasis on publication quantity, an OA models based on traditional, for-profit publishing, and resource disparities in the Global South. When users take fuller responsibility and ownership of scholarly communications, knowledge can be a public good and not a commodity. A more sustainable and just scholarly communications ecosystem can be a reality. As effective advocates for OA, librarians need to be ready to respond to those who conflate OA and predatory publishing. It is helpful to contextualize predatory publishing as an aspect of evaluating publishers and the quality of scholarship. This helps promote the idea that due diligence is the responsibility of all scholars, whether as authors, peers, or administrators. Additionally, positioning (deliberate) predatory publishing in the broader arena of unethical and fraudulent scholarly practices helps to decouple predatory publishing from OA and boosts our ability to communicate effectively with non-librarians.

[1]  Peter Lunenfeld The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading: Tales of the Computer as Culture Machine , 2011 .

[2]  Sarah Britto,et al.  Predatory Journals in the Criminal Justices Sciences: Getting our Cite on the Target , 2017 .

[3]  Stefan Eriksson,et al.  The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics , 2016, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[4]  Dan Remenyi,et al.  Researchers Beware of Predatory and Counterfeit Journals: Are Academics Gullible? , 2016 .

[5]  Behzad Ataie-Ashtiani,et al.  Chinese and Iranian Scientific Publications: Fast Growth and Poor Ethics , 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[6]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  Imagining a Gold Open Access Future: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Funding Scenarios among Authors of Academic Scholarship , 2017, Coll. Res. Libr..

[7]  Ayokunle Olumuyiwa Omobowale,et al.  Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria , 2014 .

[8]  Sneha Kulkarni What causes peer review scams and how can they be prevented? , 2016, Learn. Publ..

[9]  E. Carafoli Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science , 2015, Rendiconti Lincei.

[10]  Xiang Ren,et al.  The quandary between communication and certification: Individual academics' views on Open Access and open scholarship , 2015, Online Inf. Rev..

[11]  H. Dobson Think.Check.Submit.: the campaign helping researchers navigate the scholarly communication landscape , 2016 .

[12]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing , 2013 .

[13]  Margaret A. Ray An Expanded Approach to Evaluating Open Access Journals , 2016 .

[14]  Jingfeng Xia,et al.  Predatory journals and their article publishing charges , 2015, Learn. Publ..

[15]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Five Scholarly Open Access Publishers , 2012 .

[16]  J. Bohannon How to hijack a journal. , 2015, Science.

[18]  L. Nicoll,et al.  Caught in the Trap: The Allure of Deceptive Publishers , 2015, Nurse Author & Editor.

[19]  Henry Trotter,et al.  Seeking Impact and Visibility. Scholarly Communication in Southern Africa , 2014 .

[20]  D. Dhingra,et al.  Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. , 2014, Indian journal of medical ethics.

[21]  B. Björk,et al.  ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[22]  Christian Fuchs,et al.  The Diamond Model of Open Access Publishing: Why Policy Makers, Scholars, Universities, Libraries, Labour Unions and the Publishing World Need to Take Non-Commercial, Non-Profit Open Access Serious , 2013 .

[23]  N. Gogtay,et al.  The revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India for academic promotions: Need for a rethink , 2016, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[24]  David J. Solomon,et al.  How research funders can finance APCs in full OA and hybrid journals , 2014, Learn. Publ..

[25]  Frank Truth,et al.  Pay Big to Publish Fast: Academic Journal Rackets. , 2012 .

[26]  Curbing academic predators: JoTT's policy regarding citation of publications from predatory journals , 2015 .

[27]  J. Samulski,et al.  Who ’ s Afraid of Peer Review ? , 2009 .

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

[29]  Suzie Allard,et al.  Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently When Deciding What to Read and Cite and Where to Publish , 2015 .

[30]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis , 2016, Inf. Process. Manag..

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

[32]  Linlin Zhao,et al.  Riding the Wave of Open Access: Providing Library Research Support for Scholarly Publishing Literacy , 2014 .

[33]  M. Hvistendahl China's publication bazaar. , 2013, Science.

[34]  M. Rezaeian Disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English , 2015, Epidemiology and health.

[35]  Mary M. Christopher,et al.  Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops , 2015, Front. Vet. Sci..

[36]  Heather Morrison,et al.  Open Access Article Processing Charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014 , 2015, Publ..

[37]  V. Negi,et al.  Letter to the Editor: Predatory Practices and How to Circumvent Them: a Viewpoint from India , 2016, Journal of Korean medical science.

[38]  W. E. Nwagwu Open Access in the Developing Regions: Situating the Altercations About Predatory Publishing / L’accès libre dans les régions en voie de développement : Situation de la controverse concernant les pratiques d’édition déloyales , 2016 .

[39]  Jill Cirasella,et al.  Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers , 2015 .

[40]  S. Bell,et al.  Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups , 2016 .

[41]  Jill Emery Heard on the Net: It’s a Small World After All: Traveling Beyond the viewpoint of American Exceptionalism To the Rise of the Author , 2013 .

[42]  Max Eckard,et al.  addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators , 2014 .

[43]  Mehrdad Jalalian,et al.  The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them , 2015, Electronic physician.

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

[45]  Aamir Raoof Memon,et al.  ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. , 2016, JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association.

[46]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access , 2013 .