مقاله علمی فیزیک از دکـترحـمیدرضــاجلالیان به مرکزتحقیقات علوم یونسکو مقاله علمی فیزیک از دکـترحـمیدرضــاجلالیان به مرکزتحقیقات علوم یونسکو ------------------------------------------------- BY:Dr.HAMIDREZA JALALIAN,* 1Editor In Chief, Electronic Physician, Mashhad, Iran 2Infectious and Topical Diseases Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences

1. ‫یونسکو‬ ‫علوم‬ ‫مرکزتحقیقات‬ ‫به‬ ‫دکـترحـمیدرضــاجاللیان‬ ‫از‬ ‫فیزیک‬ ‫علمی‬ ‫مقاله‬‫به‬ ‫دکـترحـمیدرضــاجاللیان‬ ‫از‬ ‫فیزیک‬ ‫علمی‬ ‫مقاله‬
‫یونسکو‬ ‫علوم‬ ‫مرکزتحقیقات‬
-------------------------------------------------
BY:Dr.HAMIDREZA JALALIAN,*
1Editor InChief,ElectronicPhysician,Mashhad,Iran
2InfectiousandTopical DiseasesResearchCenter,HormozganUniversityof Medical Sciences
(HUMS),
Hormozgan,Iran
(*Correspondingauthor’se-mail:mehrdad.medic@gmail.com)

2. Received:2February2014, Revised:4February2014, Accepted:6February2014
Abstract
Duringthe last 2 years,there hasbeenextensive discussionabout“hijackedjournalsbeingimposed
on the academicworldbythe huge increase inthe numberof boguspublishersandspurious
websites”.
Hijackersmake moneybystealingthe identitiesof legitimatejournalsandcollectingthe article
processingchargesonthe papersthat are submittedtojournals.The cybercriminalshave cheated
thousandsof professorsandPh.D.scholarsmostlyfromdevelopingcountriesandthose whowere in
the
urgentneedof publishingtheirarticlesinjournalsthatare coveredbythe Journal CitationReport(a
ThomsonReuters’product).The fake journalstargetedtheirvictimsusingsmartideasbothinweb
developmentstepandvictimselection.Thispaperintroducessome simplemethodsthatcan be
used
easilytoidentifythe fake publishersasa shortto midtermsolutionandrecommendsestablishinga
movementfordesigninganewmodel forassessingthe qualityof academicresearch.
Keywords:Research,journal,publisher,impactfactor,fake
Introduction
We readwithgreat interestthe paperinthe journal “Nature”inwhichDeclanButlerreported2
sham journalsthatwere scammingauthors[1].AccordingtoButler(andour ownexperienceas
well),2
print-onlyjournalsthatdonot offerelectronicversionswere hijackedbycybercriminals.The
hijackers
setup fake websitesandtookmoneyfromauthors whowere attemptingtopublishtheirresearch
workin
one of the journalsindexedbyScience CitationIndex Expanded(SCIE),aThomsonReuters’metric
productthat compilesimpactfactorsforcoveredjournals.A similarstoryentitled“ScientificArticles
Accepted(Personal Checks,Too)”waspublishedinThe New YorkTimesrecently[2],warningabout
fake conferencesandthe unethical businesspracticesof some predatorypublishers.
While there wasa substantial increaseinthe numberof fake publishersandhijackedjournalsin
2012, we have beingtryingtodraw attentiontothispredatorypractice forseveral years.Indeed,we
identifiedthe signsof agrowingmovementtowardsuchmisconductinthe early2000s, whensome
of the
“AmericanJournals”basedinAsiawere established.The so-called“AmericanJournals”(withno
Americanauthorspublishingtheirworkinthem) begantopublishthousandsof articleswrittenby
authors
fromdevelopingcountries.These authors,whowereunknowinglydefrauded, wereveryexcitedto
see
theirresearchpublishedinthe prestigious“AmericanJournals”.A journal editorforareputable
publishingcompanyinIrantoldus abouta recentincidentinwhichanauthorsubmittedanarticle
for
publicationinthe journal. Afterreadingthe article,the journal’sreviewersprovidedalonglistof
constructive commentsthatrequiredthe authortomake majorrevisions.The authorhadobviously
been
defraudedearlierbyeither“AmericanJournals”orsimilarboguspublishing companies,andhe
responded
to the journal editor:“Ihave publishednumerousarticlesinprestigiousAmericanjournalsbefore
without
HijackedJournalsandPredatoryPublishersMehrdadJALALIAN andHamidrezaMAHBOOBI

3. http://wjst.wu.ac.th
WalailakJSci & Tech 2014; 11(5)
390
any needtorevise the manuscript;whyisyournon-reputable,regionaljournal sodemanding?”We
know
of literallyhundredsof suchincidentsduringlast10years,and we have expendedconsiderable
effortto
warn academicresearchersaboutthe low-quality,non-reviewedjournalsthose daysandtocaution
them
aboutbeingfooledbysome of the so-called“prestigiousjournals”thatworkonlyona “pay and get
publishedmodel”.The resultof efforts,whichwere well-intentioned,wasthatthousandsof excited
authorsturnedagainstus,especiallythose whohadreceivedacademicupgradesbypublishingin
commercial journals.Thisstoryremindsusanold,Persianproverbthatsays“One handclapping
producesnosound!”Afterthese introductoryremarksaboutthisissue,first,we discussthe overt
misconductthatthreatensthe academicworld,i.e.,fake publishersandscamwebsitesand
introduce some
practical,short-termsolutionsforavoidingfake publishersandhijackedjournals.Finally,we address
the
issue of questionable andnefarious,open-accesspublisherstodepictthe magnitudeof the threat
they
pose,andclose the paperby emphasizingthe emergentandpressingneedtore-thinkhow we
assessthe
modelsof evaluatingacademicresearch.
The problem:real moneyfromfake journals
Storiesaboutfake websitesthatconpeople intopayingforgoodsthatare neverdeliveredhave
been
toldfor manyyears.Today,the facts that we considerresearch‘awork’onlyif it ispublishedin
journals
that have a highimpactfactor and that academicpublishershave shiftedfromatraditional business
model
to an open-accessmodel have made itprofitableenoughforscammerstoadda new line intheir
business:
“Real Moneyfrom Fake Journals”[1,3].Duringthe last 2 years,cyber criminalshave startedto
imitate
the namesof reputable journalsthatpublishonlyprintedversionsof articles.Duringthese2years,
we
observedalmostall of the fake publishersandhijackedjournals,andthere were almostone hundred
of
them.By saying“one hundred”fake journals,readersmaythinkwe are referringtothe predatory
journals
that couldeasilynumberinthe hundredsthesedays;however,whatwe are reallyreferringtoare
the tens
of casessimilartothe “VulfeniaJournal”and“ArchivesdesSciences,”notthe predatory,open-
access
journals.Inour updatingof these kindsof spuriousjournals,we foundevidenceof the hijackingof
“Jokul
Journal”fromIceland,a SouthAfrican-basedjournal entitled“Bothalia,”andanoldFrenchjournal
“Pensee Journal”,all of whichhave theirimpactfactorcompiledbyJournal CitationReport(JCR).

4. Moreover,we have diagnosedsome signsof the fake institutes(registeredbynoone at nowhere)
that
beganto assignfake impactfactor valuestojournalsrecently[4].Actually,payingforreal,open-
access
publicationsisareasonable thingtodo,butthe moneyshouldgoto reputable,notbogus,journals.
The
extenttowhichthousandsof authorshave incurredstrongnegative impactsasthe resultof having
been
dupedintopublishinginfake journalsissad,bothforthose authorsand the scientificcommunityat
large.
The sadderstory wasthat we found some lecturerswhooptedtosubmittheirmanuscriptsto
Vulfenia
Journal eventhoughtheywere fullyaware thatitwas a fake journal.Theydidsobecause theywere
going
for theiracademicupgrade procedure,andtheyknew thatthe universityevaluators/reviewerswere
not
aware of the fake-journal scamandwouldapprove theiracademicupgrade.
Unfortunately,suchfake websitescanbe createdby almostanyone whohasevenminimal
knowledge of howtodesignawebsite candoso byusingopen-source ContentManagement
Systems
(CMSs).However,we believe thatthe academiccybercriminalswhoare responsibleforthe
propagation
of hijackedjournalsare completelyfamiliarwiththe academicrulesof upgradinglecturers,
qualifying
Ph.D.candidates,andapplyingforadmissiontopostgraduate programsorany professorship
positions.
These criminalsmaybe ghostwritersortheymay be the expertswhousedtohelpscholarswrite
and
publishtheirresearchworkbeforetheydecidedtobecome full-scale “ghostpublishers”.Whoever
they
are,it isapparentthat theyhave the knowledge requiredtodesignawebsite andtohide their
identitieson
the Internet.Inaddition,theydefinitelyare familiarwithauthors’behaviors,andtheyknow that
manyof
authorsare inurgentneedof publishingacouple of “ISIpapers”(i.e.articlespublishedinjournals
that
are indexedbyThomsonReuters/InstituteforScientificInformation-ISI) withinalimitedtime.
Therefore,
the newversionof academiccybercriminalsknows whattodoand how toorganize a completely
fake
conference orhijacka printedjournal.Accordingtoourobservations,the maintechniquesandrules
these
criminalshave usedtocheathigh-intellectacademicsare categorizedbelow.
HijackedJournalsandPredatoryPublishersMehrdadJALALIAN andHamidrezaMAHBOOBI
http://wjst.wu.ac.th
WalailakJSci & Tech 2014; 11(5)
391
Target (journal) selection

5. 1. Findingsome reputable,butnon-famous,journalsastheirpotentialtargets,especiallyindividual
publisherswithsinglejournals.
2. Journalsbasedinnon-English-speakingcountriesare preferred.Itisreallyadifficultjobevenfor
authorswho are skeptical abouta journal tofindthe phone numbersof authenticjournalsthatare
basedin
non-English-speakingcountries.
3. Since onlythe ThomsonReuters’(ISI) indexedjournalsmattertomostuniversitieswhen
someone isapplyingforanacademicupgrade ora Ph.D.opportunity,the criminalsknow thatthe
victim
journal shouldbe coveredbythe Webof Science (WOS) andhave an impactfactor compiledbythe
JCR,
a product of ThomsonReuters.
4. The targetjournal shouldnothave a website.WhensearchingThomsonReutersforprint-only
journalsusingtheirISSN,theirtitleswill appearinthe searchresults.However,nolinkstothe
journals’
websitesexistbecausetheydonothave websites.
5. The targetjournal shouldnothave a highimpact-factorvalue because itwouldbe difficultforthe
hijackerstoconvince the authorsthat a highimpact-factorjournal invitedthemtopublishtheirwork
in2
weeks.However,claimingalow(butgreaterthanzero) impactfactor on the fake website isgood
enough
for authorswhoare tryingto gettheirworkpublishedinaThomsonReuters’indexedjournal inthe
shortestpossibletime.
Webdevelopment
1. Anonymousregisteringof a.COMor .ORG domainname forthe affectedjournal toimitate the
website of anauthenticjournal ormaliciouslysettingupa duplicate websiteforthe hijackedjournal.
2. Avoidingthe country-name domains(suchas.USand .IR) because theirregistrationprocedures
usuallyrequire acheckof the identityof the domainownerorverificationof avalidaddress.
3. Misusingof famouseditorsandreal people’snamesinthe listof the journal’seditorial board
withouttheirpermission.Itseemstobe an easyjobto setup a fake journal listing“editors”who
know
nothingaboutthe jobtheypurportedlyare doingorlistingfake namesof people withtitlessuchas
“Dr.”
or “Ph.D.”
4. Creatingfake impactfactors or falselystatingthattheyhave earnedanimpactfactoris a good
technique topretendtobe a prestigiousjournal.Thistechnique appliesforthe completelyfake
publishers,
not forthe websitesof real journalsthathave beenhijacked,becausetheyhave averifiedimpact
factor
compiledbythe JCR.
5. Providingalinkfroma fake website tothe authenticjournal’sprofile inthe masterjournal listof
ThomsonReuters.Sometimes,authorsknow thatthere shouldbe alinkbetweenthe Thomson
Reuters’
website andthe Journal’swebsite,buttheyforgetthatthislinkshouldbe fromThomsonReutersto
the
Journal,notfromthe Journal toThomsonReuters.
6. Having no contact detail providedinthe “Contactus”page of the website of ahijackedorfake
publisher.

6. 7. Providingfull contactinformationinthe hijackedjournal!Aswe statedpreviously,intheirvery
earliestwork,cybercriminalsusedasimple contact/feedbackforminsteadof providingreal contact
details.However,authors’beingunaware of how todifferentiatebetweenfake journalsandreal
journals
increasedthe confidence of the hijackerstoalevel thatencouragedthemtointroduce their
masterpieces,
i.e.,fake websiteswithcomplete detailsconcerninghow tocontactthe editorial office,including
“real”
postal addressesand“real”butinvalidphone numbers,which,insome cases,werevirtual VOIP-
based
phone numbers,tomake sure nothingwas questionable intheirwebsitessothatevenskeptical
authors
mightnot suspectthattheywere beingscammed.
8. Includinga fake log-ingatewayforaccessingthe archive of the pastissuesthatwill neverwork.
9. Perhaps(intheirfuture innovations)providingareal accessportal to double theirmoneyby
sellingsubscriptions.
10. Misusingof the namesof invalidorganizations,indicatingthattheyare scientificsupportersor
publishersof the fake journals.Examplescanbe the use of prestigious termsusedinacademic
publishing
HijackedJournalsandPredatoryPublishersMehrdadJALALIAN andHamidrezaMAHBOOBI
http://wjst.wu.ac.th
WalailakJSci & Tech 2014; 11(5)
392
withslightmodifications, suchas“International Associationof X”,“AmericanSocietyof X”,“World
Associationof X”and “BritishCommittee of X”.
Victimologyandmarketing
1. The selectionof victimsamongcertainhigh-riskacademicgroupsiskeytosuccessfor academic
cybercriminals.Byintroducingthe term“selectionof victims”we meanthatacademiccyber
criminals
are proficientatanalyzingthe behaviorsof people andthe phenomenathatoccurin the academic
world.
Thus,theyfocustheirmarketingcampaignonselectedgroupsof authorswhotheyidentifyas
potential
victims.Theyfindthe email addressesof the authorsfromthe websitesof commercial,non-peer-
reviewedjournalsthatare listedinThomsonReutersorScopus(A metricproductof Elsevier).These
authors(potential victims) are expectedtorespondpositivelytoanycall-for-paperemailsthey
receive
froman ISI journal,because theyhave alreadypublishedearlierarticlesincommercial journalsthat
work
on a “pay and getpublished”basis.Again,we believethatthe cybercriminalsare intelligentenough
to
avoidrecruitingtheirvictimsfromthe websitesof real,high-qualityjournalsthatfollowastrict
model in
theirpeer-reviewprocedure.
2. Email marketing(bettercategorizedasspammarketing) forthe legitimate journalonthe website
of a hijackedorjunkjournal.Technically,the cybercriminalsalsomayuse some email extractor
software
and an automated,large-scale spambroadcastermachine.

7. 3. Using pseudonamesandtitlessuchasDr., Ph.D.,and Professorinall of the unsolicitedemails
theybroadcast.
4. Mentioningthe journal’sISIimpactfactorandclearlypointingoutthe rapidacceptance of
manuscriptswithin2weeksorlesstime.
Finally,makingmoneyfromnon-reviewedresearcharticles.Inaweekor2, the “lucky”authors
will receiveanacceptance letterand,of course,aninvoice.
Short- to mid-termsolutions
Disclosingthe unethical andcriminal practicesof hijackedjournalsandboguspublishersisthe only
existingactionagainstthistype of academiccybercrime.Some universitiesalsohave announceda
long
listof bannedor black-listedjournals.Unfortunately,onlyshort-termeffectsare expectedfrom
these
knee-jerkreactions,because theyare usuallybasedonsome superficialinvestigationratherthanon
logical reasoning.Instead,familiarizingthe authorswithmethodsof avoidingthe scammers’sites
could
be consideredabettershort- tomid-termchoice.The goal of a short- to mid-termstrategyshould
be to
“disseminateknowledge/awarenessaboutsuchscamsand to trainauthorsso theywill have the
basic
skillsrequiredtoavoidfake publishersandhijackedjournals.Basedonourpractical knowledge,
experience, andobservations,we have preparedthe following“to-do/not-to-do”listtoexplainhow
to
identifyandavoidfake journals:
1. Ignore all call-for-paperssolicitationsemaileddirectlytoyou.Indeed,broadcastingunsolicited
callsfor papersisnot the wayhigh-qualitypublishersdotheirjobsunlessanauthor’sname is
alreadyof
theirlistof newsletterrecipients.Therefore,withouthesitation,markthemall asspam.
2. Do notopenany unsolicitedemailsayingthatyourworkhasalreadybeenselectedfor
publication.Theyare all scams.
3. If a website claimstobe the authenticwebsite of aprestigiousjournalthatislistedinanindexing
or abstractingdatabase,suchas ThomsonReuters,Pubmed/Medline,Index Copernicus,Scopus,
SCImago(A free accesstool createdby Scopus),orthe Directoryof OpenAccessJournals(DOAJ),
investigatethe respective websitesof these databasesforanylinktothe website of the journal and
make
sure theyare matched.
4. In case there isno directlinkfromthe investigatedindexingportal (suchasThomsonReuters) to
the journal,checkthe otherindexingorabstractingservices(suchasSCImago) foranyvalidlinkto
the
journal’swebsite.
5. Checkthe “Whois”profile of the websitethroughInterNIC(http://www.internic.com),Domain
Tools(http://www.domaintools.com),GoDaddy(http://www.godaddy.com),orOnlineNIC
HijackedJournalsandPredatoryPublishersMehrdadJALALIAN andHamidrezaMAHBOOBI
http://wjst.wu.ac.th
WalailakJSci & Tech 2014; 11(5)
393
(http://www.onlinenic.com).Inthe Whoisdatasectionof the investigatedwebsite,searchforthe
“date
created.”Thisvalue referstothe exactday the domainwasregisteredbyitsowner.Youmayfind

8. that the
fake website of ahijackedjournal wasregisteredjustafew daysago!However, averyoldand
reputable,
print-onlyjournal maydecidetogoonline and,therefore,alsowouldhave arecent“date created.”
Therefore,thistechniqueisnota stand-alone methodfordeterminingafake website.
6. Double checkthe journal’swebsiteforeverything,includingthe accesstopastissues,the peer-
reviewflowchart,the guide toauthorssection,andthe otherjournalsthatmightbe hostedbythe
same
website.
7. The contentof fake journalstendstobe copiedfromotherwebsitesandpastedonthe fake
website.Forexample,we checkedthe propertyof the MicrosoftOffice Wordfileof the “Journal
Template”inthe hijackedVulfeniaJournal andfoundthatthe file wascopiedfromapublisherin
Canada.
A similarfile onthe website of the hijackedJokul Journal wascopiedfromaconference of the
“Institute
of Electrical andElectronicsEngineers”(IEEE).Tocheckthe propertyof a MicrosoftOffice Wordfile,
simplyrightclickonit (inMicrosoftWindows) andchoose “Properties.”Then,double checkall of the
tabs,especiallythe tab“Details,”where youmayfindevenmore excitinginformation,suchasthe
addressof the website of the original journal fromwhichthe file wasstolen.Usually,cybercriminals
eitherdonothave time to fix all of these detailsortheyare sure no one will checkthem.Inthe
“Author”
box in the “Details”tab,youwill findthe log-inname of the cybercriminals’computerwhenthey
turn on
theircomputerandlog into MicrosoftWindows!Toillustrate how significantthiscapabilityis,
suffice it
to say that we foundthatthe hijackerof “VulfeniaJournal”and“Archive desScience”wasthe same
person!
8. Evaluate the overall designof the website andcheckitthoroughlyforanyshadypicture or
misspelledwords.Cheap-lookingwebsitesthatare masqueradingasprestigiouspublishersdonot
have
the time dedicatedtothemthatthe real thingdoes.
9. Email both the indexingservice andthe journal editorforthe purpose of furtherverification,but
thismethodusuallydoesnotproduce anyuseful results.However,authorsmightwanttogive ita
try
knowingthata “No response”sometimesisagood parameterthatcan helpthemgeta distinct
image of
the journal intheirmind.If any response isreceivedfromthe journal,thenitmightprovide some
informationtodetermine howtrustworthythe journalis.
10. To an inexperiencedperson,all websiteslooklegitimate;therefore,itisdifficulttotell whether
theyare fake or real.Inexperiencedauthorsorthose whohave anydoubtafterdoingall of the
recommendedinvestigationsshouldconsultexpert.Theymaysimplydecide toforgetaboutitand
stickto
the high-qualityjournalstheyknow fromtheirexperience.
11. If someone claimsshe canpublishyourarticle ina prestigiousjournal fast,rejectherofferwith
no doubt.One of the constant marketingstrategiesof the fake publishersistodobusinesswith
some
people whocanworkfor themon commissiontorecruithundredsof authorsforthem andtake
their

9. commissions.Inmostcases,itseemsthateventhe intermediatepeople whoworkwithjournal
hijackers
are unaware thattheyare doingbusinesswithfake publishers.
12. Some people maysuggestauthorssubmittingtheirarticlesonlytoa limitedlistof the most
famouspublishersandignoringall of the otherjournals.We donotsuggestthat authorsdo so,
because
there are many great,high-qualityjournalsthatare new buthave notdevelopedtheirreputations
because
theyhave yetto be indexed.Forexample,if aprestigiousuniversitydecidestolauncha new journal,
the
journal initiallywill notbe deemedtobe reputable becausethe repute of ajournal iscalculated
using
some numerical values,and,forthe mostpart, those values come fromthe citationof metricdata.
No
matterhow reputable the journal maybe accordingtothe quantitative value thatisblinkingatyou
on its
website’shomepage,be careful whenthere isalackof transparencyaboutthe journal’spublishing
processes.
we call the years2012 and 2013 the yearsof Fake Journalsandwe will call the year2014 the yearof
Fake Impact Factors.Fake publishersandimpactfactorsremindedusof the urgentneedtoevaluate
the
methodsthatcurrentlyare usedto assess academicresearch.Doingathoroughretrospective
assessment
definitelyisanurgentneedintoday’sacademicworld.Perhapsswitchingfromquantitativemethods
to
qualitative approachesforassessingthe qualityof academicresearchisthe onlylong-termstrategy
that
wouldbe effective inprotectingacademiafromall of the obviousmisconductof fake publishers,
hijacked
journals,and,of course,the predatory,non-reviewed,low-qualitypublicationsthatare greatthreats
to the
validityandintegrityof science.Tobe more precise,we believe thatnumerical valuesare notideal
indicatorsforuse inassessingthe qualityof scientificeffortstofill the gapsinourknowledge.Toput
it
intopractical terms,numerical valuessimplyare notthe goldstandardfor determiningthe qualityof
journals.There are manylow-qualityjournalsinthe marketthatdo notevenuse a review process,
while
theirwebsitesprovideseveral numerical valuesproclaimingthattheyare reputable.We evenhave
heard
manystoriesaboutintelligentstudentswhosentstupidpaperstosome of the journals,andthey
were
acceptedforpublication.We hope the storieswe sharedhave clearlydepictedthe weaknessof the
current
quantitative methodsthatare usedtoevaluate the qualityof academicresearch.Honestly,however,
we
alsorecognize thatitwill be difficulttodesignandimplementnew models,especiallyqualitative
models.

10. Nowthat we understandthata journal’srepute isbasedona questionable numerical value, we
conclude
thisappeal witha question:Dothe terms“reputable journal”and“high-qualityjournal”have the
same
meaning?
References
[1] D Butler.Shamjournalsscamauthors.Nature 2013; 495, 421-2.
[2] G Kolata.ScientificArticlesAccepted(PersonalChecks,Too),The New YorkTimes,Available
online at:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-
pseudo-
academia.html?_r=2&,accessedApril 2013.
[3] J Beall.Predatorypublishersare corruptingopenaccess.Nature 2012; 489, 179.
[4] M JalalianandH Mahboobi.Newcorruptiondetected:Bogusimpactfactorscompiledbyfake