Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 183–202 | Cite as

Penetrating the Omerta of Predatory Publishing: The Romanian Connection

Original Paper

Abstract

Not so long ago, a well institutionalized predatory journal exposed itself by publishing a hoax article that blew the whistle for its devastating influence on the academic affairs of a small country. This paper puts that experiment in context, gives all the important details and analyzes the results. The experiment was inspired by well-known cases of scientific activism and is in line with recent efforts against predatory publishers. The paper presents the evidence in detail and uses it to analyze the publishing practices of the offending journal, using established criteria for assessing predatory publications. That journal somehow acquired an impact factor and charged money to publish thousands of “scientific” papers without any peer review. Since the impact factor is the major official evaluation criteria for scientists in Serbia, these papers disturbed the whole academic evaluation process. Credentials acquired by those publications form a strong obstacle to institutionalized reasoned efforts against such practices. This case warns the whole community of the long lasting damage when journals with low publishing ethics are taken seriously.

Keywords

Predatory publishing Whistleblowing Scientific responsibility Peer review Publication practices Professional competence 

References

  1. Ball, P. (2005). Computer conference welcomes gobbledegook paper. Nature, 434(7036), 946–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall, J. (2012a). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (2nd edition). http://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/criteria-2012-2.pdf. Accessed 24 September 2013.
  3. Beall, J. (2012b). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beall, J. (2013). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2013. http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/. Accessed 24 September 2013.
  5. Bricmont, J., & Sokal, A. (2004). Reply to gabriel stolzenberg. Social Studies of Science, 34(1), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, D. (2013). The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curb, L. A., & Abramson, C. I. (2012). An examination of author-paid charges in science journals. Comprehensive Psychology, 1(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  8. Cyril, L. (2010). Ike antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Newsletter, 6(2), 48–52.Google Scholar
  9. Djuiric, D. Z., Delilbasic, B., & Radisic, S. (2013). Evaluation of transformative hermeneutic heuristics for processing random data. International Journal of Very Important Multidisciplinary Research, 18(6), 98–102. http://www.scribd.com/doc/167706815.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, B., & Zigmond, M. (2012). Scientific publishing. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics (2nd ed.) (pp. 32–40). San Diego: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00175-7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123739322001757.
  11. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Criticism on the hg-index. Scientometrics, 86(2), 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One, 6(6), e20,961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lane, J. (2010). Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464(7288), 488–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nacionalni savet za visoko obrazovanje. (2007). Preporuke o bliim uslovima za izbor u zvanja nastavnika. Nacionalni savet za visoko obrazovanje.Google Scholar
  15. Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. (2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in Research, 17(2), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth, D. L. (2005). The emergence of competitors to the science citation index and the web of science. Current Science, 89(9), 1531–1536.Google Scholar
  17. Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9), 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sipka, P. (2012). Legitimacy of citations in predatory publishing: The case of proliferation of papers by serbian authors in two bosnian wos-indexed journals. Tech. Rep. CEES Occasional Papers Series 2012-12-2, CEON—Centar za evaluaciju u obrazovanju i nauci. http://ceon.rs/ops/12122.pdf.
  19. Sokal, A. (2010). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy and culture: Science, philosophy and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sokal, A. D. (1996a). Transgressing the boundaries: An afterword. Philosophy and Literature, 20(2), 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sokal, A. D. (1996b). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217–252.Google Scholar
  22. Stribling, J., Krohn, M., & Aguayo, D. (2005). Scigen—an automatic cs paper generator. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen.
  23. Univerzitet u Beogradu. (2008). Kriterijum za sticanje zvanja nastavnika na univerzitetu u beogradu. Glasnik Univerziteta u Beogradu. http://www.bg.ac.rs/files/sr/univerzitet/univ-propisi/KriterijumiZaSticanjeZvanja.pdf. Accessed 24 September 2013.
  24. Van Noorden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 499(7456), 19–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics, 92(2), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Organizational SciencesUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations