Open access: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:27, 14 May 2025

Revision as of 12:59, 24 May 2025

Line 252:

[[Predatory publishing|Predatory publishers]] present themselves as academic journals but use lax or no peer review processes coupled with aggressive advertising in order to generate revenue from article processing charges from authors. The definitions of 'predatory', 'deceptive', or 'questionable' publishers/journals are often vague, opaque, and confusing, and can also include fully legitimate journals, such as those indexed by PubMed Central.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2020-06-15|title=Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020)|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719364502|journal=Science of the Total Environment|language=en|volume=721|pages=136454|doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136454|issn=0048-9697|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Irawan|first2=Dasapta Erwin|last3=Tennant|first3=Jonathan P.|last4=Wien|first4=Charlotte|last5=Dorch|first5=Bertil F.|pmid=31924309|bibcode=2020ScTEn.72136454P|s2cid=210150077}}</ref> In this sense, Grudniewicz et al.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Grudniewicz|first1=Agnes|last2=Moher|first2=David|last3=Cobey|first3=Kelly D.|last4=Bryson|first4=Gregory L.|last5=Cukier|first5=Samantha|last6=Allen|first6=Kristiann|last7=Ardern|first7=Clare|last8=Balcom|first8=Lesley|last9=Barros|first9=Tiago|last10=Berger|first10=Monica|last11=Ciro|first11=Jairo Buitrago|date=2019-12-12|title=Predatory journals: no definition, no defence|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=576|issue=7786|pages=210–212|doi=10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y|pmid=31827288|bibcode=2019Natur.576..210G|s2cid=209168864|issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free|hdl=11584/281794|hdl-access=free}}</ref> proposed a consensus definition that needs to be shared: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices."

In this way, predatory journals exploit the OA model by deceptively removing the main value added by the journal (peer review) and parasitize the OA movement, occasionally hijacking or impersonating other journals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Borchardt |first2=Glenn |date=1 June 2016 |title=Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing |url=https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |url-status=live |journal=Aesthetic Surgery Journal |language=en |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=739–741 |doi=10.1093/asj/sjw026 |issn=1090-820X |pmid=26906349 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608193750/https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |archive-date=8 June 2019 |access-date=5 January 2020 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Maliszewski |first2=Tomasz |last3=Teixeira da Silva |first3=Jaime A. |date=24 June 2016 |title=Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics |journal=Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=353–362 |doi=10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x |issn=1547-769X |pmid=27342770 |s2cid=38963478}}</ref> The rise of such journals since 2010<ref name="Shen 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Shen |first1=Cenyu |last2=Björk |first2=Bo-Christer |year=2015 |title='Predatory" Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=230 |doi=10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 |pmc=4589914 |pmid=26423063 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Perlin 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Perlin |first1=Marcelo S. |last2=Imasato |first2=Takeyoshi |last3=Borenstein |first3=Denis |year=2018 |title=Is Predatory Publishing a Real Threat? Evidence from a Large Database Study |journal=Scientometrics |volume=116 |issue=1 |pages=255–273 |doi=10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10183/182710 |s2cid=4998464|url=http://americanae.aecid.es/americanae/es/registros/registro.do?tipoRegistro=MTD&idBib=2674999 }}</ref> has damaged the reputation of the OA publishing model as a whole, especially via sting operations where fake papers have been successfully published in such journals.<ref name="Bohannon 2013">{{Cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |year=2013 |title=Who's Afraid of Peer Review? |journal=Science |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65 |bibcode=2013Sci...342...60B |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies.<ref name="Olivarez 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Olivarez |first1=Joseph |last2=Bales |first2=Stephen |last3=Sare |first3=Laura |last4=Vanduinkerken |first4=Wyoma |year=2018 |title=Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals |journal=College & Research Libraries |volume=79 |issue=1 |doi=10.5860/crl.79.1.52 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Shamseer 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Shamseer |first1=Larissa |last2=Moher |first2=David |last3=Maduekwe |first3=Onyi |last4=Turner |first4=Lucy |last5=Barbour |first5=Virginia |last6=Burch |first6=Rebecca |last7=Clark |first7=Jocalyn |last8=Galipeau |first8=James |last9=Roberts |first9=Jason |last10=Shea |first10=Beverley J. |year=2017 |title=Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=28 |doi=10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 |pmc=5353955 |pmid=28298236 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Eisen |first=Michael |date=3 October 2013 |title=I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals |url=http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924121850/http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |archive-date=24 September 2018 |access-date=5 January 2020 |website=www.michaeleisen.org}}</ref> OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as [[DOAJ]], [[Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association|OASPA]] and [[SciELO]] and comply to a standardised set of conditions. A blacklist of predatory publishers is also maintained by [[Cabell's blacklist]] (a successor to [[Beall's List]]).<ref name="Silver 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Silver |first=Andrew |year=2017 |title=Pay-to-View Blacklist of Predatory Journals Set to Launch |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22090}}</ref><ref name="Strinzel 2019">{{cite journal | doi=10.1128/mBio.00411-19 | title=Blacklists and Whitelists to Tackle Predatory Publishing: A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis | year=2019 | last1=Strinzel | first1=Michaela | last2=Severin | first2=Anna | last3=Milzow | first3=Katrin | last4=Egger | first4=Matthias | journal=mBio | volume=10 | issue=3 | pmid=31164459 | pmc=6550518 }}</ref> Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices.<ref name="TenMyths" /><ref name=":15" /><ref name="Polka 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Polka |first1=Jessica K. |last2=Kiley |first2=Robert |last3=Konforti |first3=Boyana |last4=Stern |first4=Bodo |last5=Vale |first5=Ronald D. |year=2018 |title=Publish Peer Reviews |journal=Nature |volume=560 |issue=7720 |pages=545–547 |bibcode=2018Natur.560..545P |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w |pmid=30158621 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Open irony ===