Abstract
At the beginning of every year, we expect to see worthwhile improvements on the past. The end of 2016 showcased many important issues in the scientific world, ranging from criticisms of research misconduct and fraud to the introduction of new scientometrics. Despite the scientific community’s continuing efforts, predatory journals and publishers are still on the rise, and the Beall’s list calls attention to the need to take a firm action across the board. This short opinion piece highlights research conducted by the scholarly community on research publication predators during 2016, and offers suggestions as to how to bring about future improvements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beall, J. (2016). Don’t use pubmed as a journal whitelist. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/20/dont-use-pubmed-as-a-journal-whitelist/. Accessed on 5 January 2017.
Beall, J. (2017). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2017. https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/. Accessed on 5 January 2017.
Bornmann, L., & Pudovkin, A. I. (2017). The journal impact factor should not be discarded. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(2), 180–182. doi:10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.180.
Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210.
Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., & Lagzian, M. (2016). Do you ignore information security in your journal website? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9849-z.
Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: Leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. El Profesional de la Información, 25(5), 730–737.
Sorooshian, S. (2016a). Conference wolves in sheep’s clothing. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9788-8.
Sorooshian, S. (2016b). Scholarly black market. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9765-2.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Retraction watch is apparently not interested in retractions. The Experiment, 38(3), 2306–2309.
Van Noorden, R. (2016). Controversial impact factor gets a heavy weight rival. Nature, 540(7633), 325–326. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21131.
Vitiello, M. V., & Krieger, J. (2016). Continued growth, a new metric, same high quality! Sleep Medicine Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2016.12.005.
Winker, M. A. (2016). Stop predatory publishers now. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 826. doi:10.7326/l16-0416.
Zijlstra, H., & McCullough, R. (2016). CiteScore: a new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions. https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal. Accessed on 4 January 2017.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to K. Shashok (Author AID in the Eastern Mediterranean) for improving the use of English in the manuscript. I would also like to thank Ahmed Waqas (CMH Lahore) and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Plant Biologist) for their constructive feedback on my manuscript.
Author’s contribution
ARM contributed to all the aspects of this manuscript and takes the responsibility of it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The author does not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Memon, A.R. End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1339–1345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1