End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?
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.
KeywordsJournal Predatory Publishers Research fraud Scientometrics
- 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.
- 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
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Retraction watch is apparently not interested in retractions. The Experiment, 38(3), 2306–2309.Google Scholar
- 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.