End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?

Opinion

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.

Keywords

Journal Predatory Publishers Research fraud Scientometrics 

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sorooshian, S. (2016a). Conference wolves in sheep’s clothing. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9788-8.Google Scholar
  9. Sorooshian, S. (2016b). Scholarly black market. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9765-2.Google Scholar
  10. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Retraction watch is apparently not interested in retractions. The Experiment, 38(3), 2306–2309.Google Scholar
  11. Van Noorden, R. (2016). Controversial impact factor gets a heavy weight rival. Nature, 540(7633), 325–326. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Winker, M. A. (2016). Stop predatory publishers now. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 826. doi:10.7326/l16-0416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation SciencesPeoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for WomenNawabshahPakistan

Personalised recommendations