J Korean Med Sci.  2015 Aug;30(8):1010-1016. 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010.

Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

• Gasparyan
• Yessirkepov M
• Diyanova S
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2164493
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010

Abstract

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.

Keyword

Publishing Ethics; Science Communication; Quality Control; Periodicals as Topic; Research Management

MeSH Terms

Communication
Disclosure/*ethics
*Ethics, Research
Fraud/*ethics
Information Dissemination/*ethics
Medical Writing
Periodicals as Topic/ethics
Publishing/*ethics
Science/*ethics

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The number of items on publishing ethics in PubMed (1,334 as of March 2, 2015).

Reference

1. Björk BC. A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13:e115.

2. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Open access: changing global science publishing. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:403–406.

3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J. 2011; 52:423–428.

4. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:791–793.

5. Crowe M, Carlyle D. Is open access sufficient? A review of the quality of open-access nursing journals. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015; 24:59–64.

6. Beall J. Life Science Journal Delisted from Scopus. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/07/22/life-science-journal-delisted-from-scopus/.

7. Beall J. IDOSI Journals No Longer to be Indexed in Scopus. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/05/13/idosi-journals-no-longer-to-be-indexed-in-scopus/.

8. Djuric D. Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: the romanian connection. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015; 21:183–202.

9. DOAJ announces new selection criteria. 2013. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1276.

10. Van Noorden R. Open-access website gets tough. Nature. 2014; 512:17.

11. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55:61–72.

12. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012; 489:179.

13. Beall's list of predatory publishers 2015. accessed on 3 March 2015. http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015.

14. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. 2015. accessed on 3 March 2015. https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria- 2015.pdf.

15. Bivens-Tatum W. Reactionary rhetoric against open access publishing. tripleC. 2014; 12:441–446.

16. Butler D. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013; 495:433–435.

17. Hill T. Identifying legitimate open access journals: some suggestions from a publisher. Learn Publ. 2015; 28:59–62.

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

19. Urazova D. Publications in pseudoscientific journals damage reputation of Kazakhstani scholars. 2014. accessed on 3 March 2015. http://m.tengrinews.kz/en/science/Publications-in-pseudoscientific-journals-damage-reputation-of-Kazakhstani-255439.

20. Pierson CA. Predatory and deceptive publishing practices now target nurses. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2014; 26:583.

21. Clark J. how to avoid predatory journals-a five point plan. 2015. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2015/01/19/jocalyn-clark-how-to-avoid-predatory-journals-a-five-point-plan/.

22. Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in "predatory" journals? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015; 66:1406–1417.

23. Gasparyan AY. Choosing the target journal: do authors need a comprehensive approach? J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:1117–1119.

24. Welcome, Journal Guide! accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://blog.rubriq.com/2014/03/04/welcome-journalguide/.

25. McNutt M. Improving scientific communication. Science. 2013; 342:13.

26. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112:360–365.

27. Arns M. Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature. 2014; 515:467.

28. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2007; 2:e332.

29. Kannan S, Deshpande SP, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Policy of reviewing statistics in Indian medical and surgical journals. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013; 4:139–140.

30. Parsons NR, Price CL, Hiskens R, Achten J, Costa ML. An evaluation of the quality of statistical design and analysis of published medical research: results from a systematic survey of general orthopaedic journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:60.

31. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342:60–65.

32. Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med. 2014; 107:384–385.

33. Agrawal AA. Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing. Trends Plant Sci. 2014; 19:133.

34. Kumar R. The Science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review. BMJ. 2013; 347:f7465.

35. Galipeau J, Moher D, Campbell C, Hendry P, Cameron DW, Palepu A, Hébert PC. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68:257–265.

36. Aderson K. Publishing in a weak peer-review culture: Russian academics and paid publication practices. 2002. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/20/publishing-in-a-weak-peer-review-culture-russian-academics-and-paid-publication-practices/.

37. Beall J. Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2013; 2:47–49.

38. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015; 18:E1–E14.

39. Gasparyan AY. Selecting your editorial board: maintaining standards. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:972–973.

40. Kearney MH. INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative. Predatory publishing: what authors need to know. Res Nurs Health. 2015; 38:1–3.

41. Committee on Publication Ethics. About COPE. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://publicationethics.org/about.

42. Gasparyan AY. Familiarizing with science editors' associations. Croat Med J. 2011; 52:735–739.

43. Beall J. Predatory publishers threaten to erode scholarly communication. Sci Ed. 2013; 36:18–19.

44. Conn VS. Paying the price for open access. West J Nurs Res. 2015; 37:3–5.

45. Jansen PA, Forget PM. Predatory publishers and plagiarism prevention. Science. 2012; 336:1380.

46. Roig M. Critical issues in the teaching of responsible writing. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014; 15:103–107.

47. Directory of Nursing Journals. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/.

48. Open Access Scholarly Publishing. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. accessed on 3 March 2015. Available at http://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/.

49. Wáng YX, Arora R, Choi Y, Chung HW, Egorov VI, Frahm J, Kudo H, Kuyumcu S, Laurent S, Loffroy R, et al. Implications of Web of Science journal impact factor for scientific output evaluation in 16 institutions and investigators' opinion. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014; 4:453–461.

50. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007; 95:442–445.

51. Aguillo IF. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2012; 91:343–351.

52. Gutierrez FR, Beall J, Forero DA. Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays. 2015; 37:474–476.

53. Sohail S. Of predatory publishers and spurious impact factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014; 24:537–538.

54. Dyer O. Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. BMJ. 2015; 350:h1783.

55. Kaplan K. Publishing: A helping hand. Nature. 2010; 468:721–723.

56. Hamilton CW. Don't get spooked! How to collaborate with a professional medical communicator (and avoid ghostwriting). Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2010; 58:255–261.

57. Sharma S. How to become a competent medical writer? Perspect Clin Res. 2010; 1:33–37.

58. Marchington JM, Burd GP. Author attitudes to professional medical writing support. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014; 30:2103–2108.

59. Barroga EF. Cascading peer review for open-access publishing. Eur Sci Ed. 2013; 39:90–91.

60. Satyanarayana K. Journal publishing: the changing landscape. Indian J Med Res. 2013; 138:4–7.

61. Rikkers LF. The evolution and future of scientific communication: American Surgical Association presidential address. Ann Surg. 2014; 260:409–415.