J Korean Med Sci.  2016 Dec;31(12):1874-1878. 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874.

The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities

• Gasparyan
• Nurmashev
• Voronov AA
• Gerasimov
• Koroleva A
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2355613
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874

Abstract

This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of "˜prolific' scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.

Keyword

Predatory Publishing; Open Access; Authorship; Professional Societies; Citation Metrics; Best Target Journals

MeSH Terms

Authorship
Publications
Referral and Consultation

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Scope of predatory publishing activities.

Reference

1. Rallison SP. What are Journals for? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97:89–91.

2. Wester K. Why Publish? World Neurosurg. 2016; 91:616–617.

3. Olive A, Cifuentes I, Roca J. The fate of abstracts: without publication, science is dead. J Rheumatol. 2004; 31:1007.

4. Yilmaz S, Kalyoncu U, Cinar M, Karadag O, Koca SS, Simsek I, Erdem H, Pay S, Dinc A. Features and publication rates of scientific abstracts presented at a rheumatology congress--EULAR 2008. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013; 2013:124–127.

5. Allart E, Beaucamp F, Tiffreau V, Thevenon A. Fate of abstracts presented at the 2008 European Congress of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015; 51:469–475.

6. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1545–1552.

7. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Deficiencies in the publication and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68:1488–1495.

8. Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014; 78:176.

9. Abdollahi M, Gasparyan AY, Saeidnia S. The urge to publish more and its consequences. Daru. 2014; 22:53.

10. Wager E, Singhvi S, Kleinert S. Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ. 2015; 3:e1154.

11. Scholarly Open Access. Thai researcher has hundreds of publications. Except ... [Internet]. accessed on 16 August 2016. Available at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/16/thai-researcher-has-hundreds-of-publications-except/.

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

13. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016; 98:77–79.

14. Scholarly Open Access. Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2016 [Internet]. accessed on 16 August 2016. Available at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/.

15. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A Scopus-based analysis of publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1915–1919.

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

17. Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015; 13:230.

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

19. Rezaeian M. Disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English. Epidemiol Health. 2015; 37:e2015021.

20. Carafoli E. Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rend Lincei Sci Fis Nat. 2015; 26:369–382.

21. Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar. Science. 2013; 342:1035–1039.

22. Ataie-Ashtiani B. Curbing Iran’s academic misconduct. Science. 2016; 351:1273–1274.

23. Gershman M, Kuznetsova T. The future of Russian science through the prism of public policy. Foresight. 2016; 18:320–339.

24. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas GD. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: a dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1010–1016.

25. Sarewitz D. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature. 2016; 533:147.

26. Bradley-Springer L. Predatory publishing and you. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2015; 26:219–221.

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

28. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gorin SV, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:1351–1354.

29. Christopher MM, Young KM. Awareness of “predatory” open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops. Front Vet Sci. 2015; 2:22.

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

31. Sharman A. Where to publish. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97:329–332.

32. Walden RR. For medical literature expertise, ask a librarian. Acad Med. 2016; 91:1040.

33. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s list: better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015; 76:132–135.

34. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int. 2012; 32:1861–1867.

35. Walker B, Alavifard S, Roberts S, Lanes A, Ramsay T, Boet S. Inter-rater reliability of h-index scores calculated by Web of Science and Scopus for clinical epidemiology scientists. Health Info Libr J. 2016; 33:140–149.

36. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:1270–1275.

37. Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M. Read the articles; don’t count them. Arch Iran Med. 2009; 12:302–303.

38. Gaster N, Gaster M. A critical assessment of the h-index. BioEssays. 2012; 34:830–832.

39. Patel VM, Ashrafian H, Almoudaris A, Makanjuola J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Darzi A, Athanasiou T. Measuring academic performance for healthcare researchers with the H index: which search tool should be used? Med Princ Pract. 2013; 22:178–183.

40. Scopus.com. Titles indexed in Scopus: check before you publish [Internet]. accessed on 16 August 2016. Available at https://blog.scopus.com/posts/titles-indexed-in-scopus-check-before-you-publish.

41. Publish or perish. Nature. 2010; 467:252.