Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Protecting Authors from Predatory Journals and Publishers

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

Given the recent proliferation of fee charging open access journals, unwary authors may not be able to differentiate between legitimate peer-review journals and those with fake peer review. Therefore, this paper proposes measures that if implemented would provide protection to junior and/or unwary authors against predatory journals and publishers whose sole purpose of existence is to exploit unsuspecting authors and institutions by collecting article processing charges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Crawford evaluated Beall’s black list, found that Beall blacklists journals and publishers without giving any reason, and came to the following conclusion: “Beall’s lists are mostly the worst possible kind of blacklist: one where there’s no stated reason for things to be included. If you’re comfortable using “trust me” as the basis for a tool, that’s your business”.

  2. See how Butler describes the opportunity predatory publishers found in the open-access movement: “the explosion in open-access publishing has fueled the rise of questionable operators”.

References

  1. Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med. 2014;107(10):384–5. doi:10.1177/0141076814548526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beall J. http://scholarlyoa.com (2016a). Last accessed on 18 July 2016.

  4. Beall J. Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature. 2016;534:326. doi:10.1038/534326a. Last accessed 18 July, 2016.

  5. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s list: better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015;76:132–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Butler D. The dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;495:433–5. doi:10.1038/495433a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Caplan AL. The problem of publication-pollution denialism. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90:565–6. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350:h210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford W. ‘Trust me’: The other problem with 87 % of Beall’s lists. http://walt.lishost.org/2016/01/trust-me-the-other-problem-with-87-of-bealls-lists/ (2016). Last accessed on 18 July, 2016.

  10. Noga-Styron KE, Michael Olivero J, Britto Sarah. Predatory journals in the criminal justices sciences: getting our cite on the target. J Crim Justice Educ. 2016. doi:10.1080/10511253.2016.1195421.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Raghavan R, Dahanukar N, Molur S. Curbing academic predators: JoTT’s policy regarding citation of publications from predatory journals. J Threat Taxa. 2015;7(10):7609–11. doi:10.11609/JoTT.o4388.7609-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan C, Vicini J. Why You should avoid predatory journals, welcome rigorous review. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/06/30/predatory-journals/2/#479d97205cc6 (2016). Last accessed on 18 July, 2016.

  13. Sarewitz D. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature. 2016;533:147. doi:10.1038/533147a. Last accessed on 18 July, 2016.

  14. Teixeira da Silva JA. Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the predatory score. Asian Aust J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(Special Issue 1):21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wehrmeijer M. Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals. Leiden University. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/28943 (2014). Last accessed on 18 July, 2016.

  16. Yucha C. Predatory publishing: what authors, reviewers, and editors need to know. Biol Res Nurs. 2015;17(1):5–7. doi:10.1177/1099800414563378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Post Office Box 3030, Irbid, 22110, Jordan

    Aceil Al-Khatib

Authors
  1. Aceil Al-Khatib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aceil Al-Khatib.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Khatib, A. Protecting Authors from Predatory Journals and Publishers. Pub Res Q 32, 281–285 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation