Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 353–362 | Cite as

Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics

  • Mehdi DadkhahEmail author
  • Tomasz Maliszewski
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Commentary

Introduction

Academic research has always faced challenges associated with assuring its quality and seeking optimal ways of representing results. Conducting a high level of research and selecting a suitable target publisher and journal require careful attention. The choice of publishing venue has been expanded by the open access (OA) movement, spurring additional scientific activity. The benefits of OA, which consist, generally speaking, in making the results of empirical research and/or the results of intellectual work available almost immediately and to a wide audience, have also introduced a number of threats and challenges to the academic world. On one hand, the number of opportunities to publish has increased significantly. On the other hand, the traditional system of peer review that was always perceived to exert a level of control by the academic community with respect to the quality of publications, has become less strict and rigorous, or has shown flaws. Collectively, a...

Keywords

Open Access Journal Academic Integrity Scholarly Publishing Page Ranking Reputable Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. Marwan M. Obeidat (Department of English Language and Literature, Hashemite University, Jordan), Valentina Christova-Bagdassarian (National Center of Public Health and Analyses, Sofia, Bulgaria), and Claudia Stefanutti (Lipid Clinic and Atherosclerosis Prevention Centre, Immunohematology and Transfusion Medicine, “Umberto I” Hospital, Department of Molecular Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Italy) for limited suggestions on early versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

12024_2016_9785_MOESM1_ESM.swf (9.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (SWF 9591 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342:60–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lukić T, Blešić I, Basarin B, Ivanović Bibić L, Milošević D, Sakulski D. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers: a global outbreak with rising trend—a review. Geogr Pannonica. 2014;18:69–81.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byard RW. The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12024-016-9771-3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515:480–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Account Res. 2015;22:22–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Archives of Biological Sciences: from falling star to glimmer of hope. 2015; self-publ:1-8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282366831_Archives_of_Biological_Sciences_From_Falling_Star_to_Glimmer_of_Hope. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  9. 9.
    Dadkhah M, Alharbi AM, Al-Khresheh MH, Sutikno T, Maliszewski T, Jazil MD, Shamshirband S. Affiliation oriented journals: don’t worry about peer review if you have good affiliation. Int J Elect Comput Eng. 2015;5:621–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78:176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jalalian M, Mahboobi H. New corruption detected: bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations. Electron Phys. 2013;5:685–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Debunking post-publication peer review. Int J Educ Inf Technol. 2015;1:34–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCook A. Can journals get hijacked? Apparently, yes. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/19/can-journals-get-hijacked-apparently-yes/. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  15. 15.
    Dadkhah M, Maliszewski T. Hijacked journals—threats and challenges to countries’ scientific ranking. Int J Technol Enhanc Learn. 2015;7:281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dadkhah M, Obeidat MM, Jazi MD, Sutikno T, Riyadi MA. How can we identify hijacked journals? Bull Electr Eng Inf. 2015;4:83–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dadkhah M, Sutikno T, Jazi MD, Stiawan D. An introduction to journal phishings and their detection approach. Telkomnika. 2015;13:373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dadkhah M, Maliszewski T, Lyashenko VV. An approach for preventing the indexing of hijacked journal articles in scientific databases. Behav Inf Technol. 2016. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2015.1128975.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dadkhah M, Bianciardi G. Ranking predatory journals: solve the problem instead of removing it! Adv Pharm Bull. 2016;6:1–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dadkhah M, Elias N, Jazi MD, Christova-Bagdassarian V, Abu-Elteen KH. A new challenge in the academic world: earning real money and eminence by paper publishing. Jordan J Biol Sci. 2015;8:73–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dadkhah M, Tarhini A, Lyashenko VV, Jazi MD. Hiring editorial member for receiving papers from authors. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015;6:11–2.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dadkhah M. Predatory journals/publishers are not sole questionable matter in open access scholarly publishing, they are part of problem. BMJ. 2015;350:h2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jalalian M, Dadkhah M. The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geogr Pannonica. 2015;19:73–87.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Potential dangers with open access files in the expanding open data movement. Publ Res Q. 2015;31:298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Dadkhah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tomasz Maliszewski
    • 2
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    • 3
  1. 1.Independent Scientist, Information Science and Publication Ethics ScholarIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Social SciencesPomeranian University in SłupskSłupskPoland
  3. 3.IkenobeJapan

Personalised recommendations