Predatory Publishing

1. Predatory Publishing
Presented by the NSU HPD Liaison Librarians:
Majid Anwar
Melinda Johnson
Kristin Kroger
John Reynolds
Julie Sarpy
Faculty Development Program - February 22, 2017

2. What is predatory publishing?
Beall, J. (2012) “Predatory publishers are corrupting open access”, Nature 489, 7415 (13 September 2012) doi:10.1038/489179a.
http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385
"predatory publishers…publish counterfeit journals to exploit
the open-access model in which the author pays. These
predatory publishers are dishonest and lack transparency.
They aim to dupe researchers, especially those inexperienced
in scholarly communication.”

3. History/Background
Jeffrey Beall – a librarian at the University of
Colorado
• 2009 – noticed an influx of spam email solicitations
• He noticed similarities in the solicitations
• He started keeping track.
Librarian Jeffrey Beall
flic.kr (CC BY 2.0)Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals Of Medicine And Surgery
(2012), 2(2), 47-49. doi:10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9

4. He noticed:
• The emails were usually not well written.
• They contained a lot of misspelled words.
• The publisher websites were empty or not well designed .
• They claim a stringent peer-review where none really exists.
Beall, J. (2010). “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers. The Charleston Advisor (2010), 11(4), 10-17.

5. • In 2010 he coined the term “predatory publisher”
• He published his first list of “potential, possible or probable
predatory scholarly open-access publishers and journals” on
his personal blog.
• The list grew.
• In 2011 he published his 2nd list and it got a lot of attention.
• In early 2012 it was moved to a Wordpress site
• The name was changed to Scholarly Open Access.
The Chronicle of Higher Education Blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/on-predatory-publishers-a-qa-with-jeffrey-beall/47667

6. • Beall was ANTI-Open Access.
• Beall’s “blacklist” at times lumps the questionable publishers
along with bona fide start-ups who may have amateurish
websites and/or operations
• Beall’s list is….Beall’s List. It was 1 mans opinion. He created
and maintained the list.
Beall received a lot of criticism

7. •On January 16, 2017 everything changed.
•The site was wiped of all content.
Where does that leave us?

8. “When e-mail first became available, it was a great innovation
that made communication fast and cheap.
Then came spam — and suddenly, the innovation wasn’t so
great. It meant having to filter out irrelevant, deceptive and
sometimes offensive messages. It still does.
The same corruption of a great idea is now occurring with
scholarly open-access publishing.”
Beall, J. (2012) “Predatory publishers are corrupting open access”, Nature 489, 7415 (13 September 2012) doi:10.1038/489179a.
http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385

9. Examples

10. Some known predatory journals

12. There is a Dr
Ecatarina Patrascu,
but she doesn’t list
being Editor in Chief
on her CV
Mrs. Pindipol ?!

13. I doubt Dr Jagtap knows
about this
Capt. Sonaje …
or Mrs. Pindipol?!

16. Similar names . . .

19. Hijacked journals

20. • Print only
• Botany
• In German
• A publication of the State
Museum of Carinthia,
Austria
• A victim of highjacking

21. Warning!
The websites
www.wulfeniajournal.at
www.wulfeniajournal.com
www.multidisciplinarywulfe
nia.org
are not the official websites
of the journal “Wulfenia:
Mitteilungen des Kärntner
Botanikzentrums” published
by the Regional Museum of
Carinthia. These websites
criminally usurp the identity
of the official journal. They
fraudulently use false
informations, a false
editorial board and false
publication requirements to
encourage authors to
submit articles and to
transfer page fees to a bank
account in Yerevan
(Armenia).

22. • Online
• “open access”
• Multidisciplinary
• Sends a lot of spam email
soliciting articles
• Run by a cybercriminal in
Armenia

23. Bogus journal metrics or “Impact Factors”

24. Bogus journal metrics or “Impact Factors”

30. Examples of so-called Peer Review

32. NSFW (not suitable for work) . . .
. . .but suitable for the
International Journal of
Advanced Computer
Technology
who rated it “excellent” and
asked for a publication fee.

33. Written entirely with the autosuggest of
the author’s iPhone …
. . . and accepted in three hours with a request for a fee of
$1099

34. “The atoms of a better universe will have the
right for the same as you are the way we shall
have to be a great place for a great time to
enjoy the day you are a wonderful person to
your great time to take the fun and take a
great time and enjoy the great day you will be
a wonderful time for your parents and kids.”
“Iris Pear,” PhD, Umbria Polytech University, Infinity Loop
11 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA

35. https://predatorypublishing.wordpress.com/about

36. Think, Check, Submit
Majid Anwar

37. What is Think, Check, Submit?
• Campaign to help
researchers
• Identify trusted journals
• Provide simple checklist

38. Think!
Are you submitting your research to a trusted journal?
Is it the right journal for your work?
• More research is being published worldwide
• New journals are launched each week
• Stories of publishers malpractice and deception are also on rise
• It can be challenging to find up-to-date guidance when choosing
where to publish
How can you be sure the journal you are considering is the right
journal for your research?

39. Check!
• Do you or your colleague know the journal?
 Have you read any articles in the journal before?
 Is it easy to discover the latest papers in the journal?
• Can you easily identify and contact the publisher?
 Is the publisher name clearly displayed on the journal website?
 Can you contact the publisher by telephone, email, and post?

40. Check!
• Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?
• Are articles indexed in services that you use?
• Is it clear what fees will be charged?
 Does the journal site explain what these fees are for and when
they will be charged?

41. Check!
• Do you recognize the editorial board?
Have you heard of the editorial board members?
Do the editorial board mention the journal on their own
websites?

42. Check!
• Is the publisher a member of a recognized industry initiative?
 Do they belong to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)?
 If the journal is open access, is it listed in the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)?
 If the journal is open access, does the publisher belong to the
Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA)?
 Is the publisher a member of another trade association?

43. Submit!
If you can answer “YES’ to most or all of the questions on the list.
Submit your article.
• Publishing in the right journal for your research will raise your
professional profile, and help you progress in your career.
• Are you confident your chosen journal will have a suitable profile
among your peers to enhance your reputation
• You paper should be indexed or archives and be easily discoverable
• You should expect a professional publishing experience where your
work in reviewed and edited.
• Only then should you submit your article

44. Think Check Submit
• Do they belong to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)?
• If the journal is open access, is it listed in the Directory of Open
Access Journals (DOAJ)?
• If the journal is open access, does the publisher belong to the Open
Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)?
• Is the publisher a member of another trade association?

45. Principles of Transparency and Best
Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
• Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
(OASPA)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
http://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_B
est_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv2.pdf

46. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly
Publishing
“In the event that a member organization is found to have violated
these best practices, or other specific requirements of the organisation,
OASPA/DOAJ/COPE/WAME shall in the first instance try to work with
them in order to address any concerns that have been raised. In the
event that the member organization is unable or unwilling to address
these concerns, their membership in the organization may be
suspended or terminated. All of the member organizations have
procedures for dealing with concerns raised about member journals.”
http://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv2.pdf

47. Committee on Publication Ethics
http://publicationethics.org/
• Established in 1997
• Provides advice to editors and publishers on publication ethics and
misconduct (Advice cases posted on the website’s forum)
• Over 10,000 members worldwide, all academic fields
• Membership open to editors and publishers of peer-reviewed
academic journals
• All members must adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal
Editors and to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in
Scholarly Publishing

49. Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association
• Established in 2008
• Represents interests of Open Access (OA) publishers
• Members include publishers, organizations and some individual
publications
• Accepts fewer than 25% of applicants
• Members must adhere to the OASPA’s Code of Conduct
• Co-authored Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly
Publishing
http://oaspa.org/

51. World Association of Medical Editors
(WAME)
• Established 1995
• Nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed journals
• Develops recommendations of best practices for medical journal
editors
• List of journals whose editors belong to WAME
• Co-authored Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly
Publishing
http://www.wame.org/

53. • Established 2003
• Directory of 9457 peer reviewed Open Access research journals
• All disciplines, all languages
• 4 level evaluation process of applicants
• Publishes list of journals removed from DOAJ
https://doaj.org/

54. Reapplication Process
• Created stricter application guidelines in 2014
• Required all journals to reapply
• 2851 journals removed May 2016 because they failed to reapply
• Journals that have been reevaluated have the green checkmark

55. Basic Requirements
•All content must be available for free without an
embargo period
•User registration to view article not acceptable
(August, 2016)

56. DOAJ
More Basic Requirements
• One URL dedicated to the journal homepage(not for the publisher’s)
• One unique URL per article
• Journal must have at least one ISSN
• Following information must be included on website:
Editor & editorial board
Peer review process
Instructions for authors
Article processing charges
Copyright

60. DOAJ Seal of Approval (717 Journals)
To receive the Seal, the journal must comply with the following 7 conditions:
• Use DOIs as permanent identifiers
• Provides DOAJ with article metadata
• Deposits content with a long term digital preservation or archiving program
• Embeds machine-readable CC licensing information in articles
• Allows generous reuse and mixing of content, in accordance with a CC BY, CC
BY-SA or CC BY-NC license
• Deposit policy registered with a deposit policy registry
• Allows the author to hold the copyright without restrictions.

62. HOW TO PERFORM DUE
DILIGENCE BEFORE
SUBMITTING TO A
JOURNAL OR PUBLISHER
BUYER BEWARE

63. C H ECK B E FORE
S U BMIT TING
M A N US CRIPT
Check that the publisher
provides full, verifiable contact
information, including address,
on the journal site
Unprofessional website
appearance: typos, ads
Check for misleading
geographic Information in the
title
Insufficient contact information
Google Map It!

64. WARNING
SIGNS:
Lack of Editors or Editorial
Board
Editors with No or Fake
academic credentials
Emailed invitations to submit to
journals or to become editorial
board members
Unclear Author Fee Structures

65. RED FL AGS:
Publishers without any address
displaying on the website and
only uses web forms
Do evaluate journal's published
articles and assess their quality
Do contact past authors and
ask about their experiences
Be wary of promises of a
speedy peer review process
Bogus Impact Factors
Hidden Fees

66. NSU WORKS
N S U W O R K S . N O VA . E
D U /
Institutional Repository- 24/7
access to NSU intellectual capital
Fulfills the requirement that
researchers provide open access
archiving for sponsored research
Avoid fees and get published
Contact:
Gena Meroth
Archives and Digital Librarian
Nova Southeastern University,
Archives
954-262-4641
nsuworks@nova.edu

67. USE COMMON
SENSE
If things just don't seem to be
right, trust your instincts and
stay away
Find out whether the journal is
a member of an industry
association that vets its
members Directory of Open
Access Journals (www.doaj.org)
or the Open Access Scholarly
Publishers Association
(www.oaspa.org)
More information at faculty
resources
http://nova.campusguides.com
/c.php?g=112249&p=2625912

68. M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N
O N P R E D ATO R Y
P U B L I S H I N G
L I B G U I D E
Don’t give
them money or
agree to
anything until
you know
they’re
legitimate!