Predatory Publishing

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Predatory Publishing , in German for “predatory publishing”, is a fraudulent business model of certain Open Access publishers. The companies, sometimes referred to as “ predatory publishers ”, pretend to publish full-fledged scientific journals and charge the authors the usual article processing charges in the open access segment , without providing the editorial and journalistic services required by the contrary to such predatory journals , robbers journals (English predatory journals ) are expected in reputable journals or "pseudo-journals" such. B. a proper peer review . The phrase was coined by Jeffrey Beall , a former internal science communications librarian at the University of Colorado . In the Beall list, which was regularly updated until January 2017, he listed publishers that he classified as “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”. The list was deleted by Beall himself after a complaint from Frontiers Media ; an investigation by the University of Colorado was ended with no findings. The list is being continued by an anonymous group (Stop Predatory Journals) and others.

Systematic studies have shown that especially inexperienced authors and those from developing and emerging countries preferred to publish with such publishers. Authors from developing and emerging countries are motivated not least by the prospect of broad awareness of their research results due to the free accessibility of their articles with relatively low publication fees; many of the publishers on the Beall list operate from such countries. On the other hand, the predatory publishing model can be used specifically by young academics from industrialized countries who are under pressure to publish , in order to publish research work of inferior quality or with marginal gain in knowledge as "peer-reviewed" in a serious periodical. The same applies to fraudsters with commercial interests who can use robbery publishers to give fake technical or medical studies about the usefulness of their product the appearance of being scientifically sound.

history

In 2008, the Canadian Gunther Eysenbach , editor of an early open access journal , drew attention to "black sheep among open access publishers and journals" and highlighted publishers and journals in the blog that attract authors and editors with excessive spam , particularly Bentham, Dove Medical Press, and Libertas Academica. In the same year, the British journalist Richard Poynder drew attention to practices that “exploit the possibilities of the new environment” in a series of interviews. In 2009, further doubts were raised about the honesty of certain open access journals. Concerned about the spamming practices of their "black sheep", the leading Open Access publishers founded the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in 2008 . In 2009 the blog Improbable Research discovered that Scientific Research Publishing's journals had duplicated work published elsewhere; this case was subsequently reported in Nature . In 2010, Cornell University graduate Phil Davis (operator of the blog Scholarly Kitchen ) submitted a manuscript that had meaningless content created using the SCIgen software and was accepted for a fee (but then withdrawn by the author). It has been reported that predatory publishers refused to accept withdrawals of submitted manuscripts, thereby preventing submission to another journal.

In August 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the Indian OMICS publishing group (including its daughters iMedPub and Conference Series ) and its president Srinubabu Gedela. Academics and researchers would be deceived about the nature of the publisher's products and the payment of several hundreds to several thousands of dollars in publication fees would be withheld until the manuscript was accepted for publication. The FTC responded to growing pressure from the academic sector to finally take action against predatory publishers. The OMICS group rejected the allegations on its website and accused the established publishers of conspiracy. According to a ruling in 2019, the publisher is no longer allowed to operate in the USA and has to pay a $ 50 million fine. Omics wants to appeal.

Bohannon's experiment

In 2013, Science journalist John Bohannon submitted a completely flawed manuscript to a number of open access journals about the alleged effects of a lichen component and published the result in a text entitled Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (“Who's Afraid of Peer Review?”). About 60% of the magazines had accepted the fake work, including the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals , while 40% rejected it, including the well-known PLOS ONE .

"Dr. Cheater "

In 2015, four Polish psychologists invented a fictional below-average scientist named Anna O. Ssta ( ossta = Polish for fraudsters ) and asked her to apply for an editorial position at 360 English-language scientific journals. Sste's qualifications were bleak; she hadn't published anything and had no editorial experience. The books and book chapters listed in her résumé as well as the publishers were fictitious.

A third of the journals to which Ssta applied were taken from the so-called Beall list , which only contains journals from alleged predatory publishers. Forty of these journals accepted Sbest as editor with no background checking, and often within days or even hours. In comparison, it received minimal to no positive response from the 240 control group journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) that meet certain quality standards, including ethical publishing practices. Of the 120 DOAJ magazines, they accepted eight. The DOAJ has now sorted out some (but not all) of the journals affected. Of the 120 JCR magazines, not a single Sbest offered a position.

The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017 and attracted considerable attention.

SCIgen

SCIgen is a computer program that randomly creates specialized IT articles using context-free grammar . His texts have been accepted by a number of robbery magazines and robbery conferences.

Germany

TV reports showed how the journalists publish nonsense texts at Sci-pub for 85 euros or present them at WASET conferences for 450 euros. Sci-pub (where studies on the alternative cancer drug GC-MAF are also published) is classified as a “pseudo-publisher”. The reports specifically deal with the work of the AfD-affiliated EIKE , of large companies such as Bayer and Airbus , but also of renowned institutes and universities that have been published by predatory publishers. The British company Conference Series also organizes mock conferences on breast cancer, for example. WDR employee Peter Onneken was even able to speak as a keynote speaker in London with a lecture copied from Wikipedia . Apparently the organizers adorn themselves with unjustified names. The Bavarian Science Minister Marion Kiechle was listed as spokeswoman for the London Breast Cancer Conference in 2018, but denied her participation.

features

Complaints in connection with predatory open access publications are directed against, among other things

  • The demand for exorbitant amounts for the publication of articles in connection with an inadequate peer review process.
  • notices of article fees issued after acceptance of the manuscripts,
  • Aggressive advertising for academics who are supposed to submit articles or work on scientific editorial boards ,
  • Fast acceptance of articles with little or no peer review or quality control, even hoaxes and meaningless texts,
  • Listing of scientists as members of scientific editorial boards without their consent and without the possibility of leaving,
  • Appointment of false academics to the scientific editorial boards,
  • Mimicking the name or website style of more established magazines,
  • improper use of ISSNs ,
  • Disseminating misinformation about the location of the publishing organization
  • fake or nonexistent impact factors .

These are the ten basic criteria listed on Stop Predatory Journals , and some of the main criteria Beall used for his list.

Growth and structure

Robbery magazines increased their publication volume from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, which are published by around 1,000 publishers with 12,000 active journals. Initially, publishers dominated the market with more than 100 magazines, but since 2012 publishers in the 10–99 magazine class have captured the largest market share. According to a study published in 2015, three quarters of the authors came from Asia or Africa, 35% of the authors were Indian. Authors paid an average fee of $ 178 per article for manuscripts that were typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission. Total sales were estimated at $ 75 million.

Reactions

Beall list

Jeffrey Beall

University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall , who coined the term “predatory publishing,” first published his list of predatory publishers in 2010. Beall's list of potential, possible or probable predatory scientific open access publishers attempted to Identify open access science publishers that are characterized by questionable practices. In 2013, Nature reported that Beall's list and website are "widely read by librarians, researchers, and open access advocates, many of whom praise efforts to uncover obscure publishing practices." Others have expressed doubts as to whether it is fair to classify all of these magazines and publishers as "predatory" - one can distinguish several shades of gray.

Beall's analyzes have been called generalizations with no evidence; he is prejudiced against open access journals from economically less developed countries. One librarian wrote that Beall's list “attempts a binary division of this complex gold rush: good and bad. But many of the criteria used are either not quantifiable ... or apply just as often to established Open Access journals as to the newcomers ... Some of the criteria seem to be based on First World rules that are not valid worldwide. ”Beall wrote Mitte 2015 a counter-speech.

After Who's Afraid of Peer Review? The DOAJ has tightened its inclusion criteria with the aim of serving as a whitelist , just as Beall's list was a blacklist . The research found that "Beall is good at identifying publishers with poor quality control". DOAJ Managing Director Lars Bjørnshauge estimates, however, that this questionable publication practice probably affects less than 1% of all author-funded open access specialist articles, far less than Beall's estimate of 5–10%. Instead of relying on blacklists, according to Bjørnshauge, open access associations such as the DOAJ and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association should take on more responsibility and set up criteria for a “white list” themselves.

A Canadian publisher who appears on the list threatened Beall with legal action. He was harassed online. Beall mainly relies on the analysis of the publisher's websites, does not work with the publishers and also lists newly founded but reputable magazines. Beall then published his criteria and set up an anonymous three-person commission that publishers can turn to in order to be removed from the list. For example, a re-evaluation in 2010 resulted in some magazines being removed from the Beall list.

In 2013, OMICS threatened to sue Beall for $ 1 billion for "ridiculous, baseless, [and] outrageous" listing with "an air of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance." An unprocessed sentence from the letter reads: ". Be warned at the beginning that this is a very dangerous trip for you and you will expose yourself to serious legal consequences, including criminal proceedings were filed in India and the United States against you" (Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases launched against you in INDIA and USA.) Beall meant the "poorly written and personally threatening" letter is "an attempt to distract from the enormity of the editorial practices of OMICS". OMICS lawyers invoked an Indian law which threatens prison sentences for those who publish false, grossly offensive or threatening information via computer. In a similar case, however, the Indian Supreme Court ruled against restricting freedom of expression. August 2016, OMICS was sued by the Federal Trade Commission (a US government agency) for "misleading business practices in connection with the publication of journals and academic conferences", successfully in the first instance.

In South Africa, the Department of Higher Education and Training used Beall's list as the authoritative source for the accreditation of journals: After accreditation, funding is awarded, but journals identified as predatory are removed from this list. ProQuest is reviewing all of the journals on Beall's list and has begun removing them from the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences .

In January 2017, Beall closed his blog and removed the content, citing pressure from his employer, which he denies.

Cabell's lists

At the Society for Scholarly Publishing meeting in May 2017, Cabell's International , a company that provides academic publication analysis and other academic services, announced that it would blacklist out predatory journals (not publishers). Access requires a subscription. The company had been working on the list since early 2016. In July 2017, both black and white lists were offered on the website.

Other lists

After Beall's list disappeared, new groups have formed, including India's Structural Engineering Research Center (a government civil engineering laboratory in Chennai ) and an anonymous group called Stop Predatory Journals.

Other efforts

Campaign Think. Check. Submit. (English)

A more transparent peer review , such as open peer review or post-publication peer review , could combat predatory journals. On the other hand, the discussion about predatory journals should not be "turned into a debate about the inadequacies of peer review" because that is what the problem has nothing to do with. "It's about fraud, deception and irresponsibility."

In an effort to “distinguish reputable journals and publishers from dubious ones,” the Committee on Publication Ethics , the DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors have issued joint guidelines on transparency and best practice. Various journal review websites (crowdsourced or expert) have been launched, some of which focus on the quality of the peer review process and include non-OA publications. A group of libraries and publishers started an awareness campaign.

A number of other measures have been proposed. Research institutions need to improve the publication skills, especially of young researchers in developing countries. Some organizations have also developed criteria by which one can identify predatory publishers.

Since Beall attributed predatory publishing to the golden way (especially in the author-pays variant), a "platinum open access" without processing fees could eliminate the publishers' conflict of interest. More objective discriminatory metrics have been suggested such as: B. a "predatory score" and positive and negative quality indicators for magazines. Authors are encouraged to consult peer-reviewed journals directories, such as the directory of nursing journals at the International Academy of Nursing Editors . It was highlighted that fraud incentives need to be removed.

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has warned that predatory publications, falsified data, and academic plagiarism undermine public confidence in the medical profession, devalue legitimate science, and undermine public support for evidence-based politics.

In 2015, Rick Anderson , Assistant Dean of the J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah , questioned the term itself: “What do we mean by predatory, and is this term even useful? ... This question is relevant because Beall's critics always say that he is only investigating one type of predator - the type that comes up with author-paid OA. ”A 2017 New York Times article suggests that many scientists are "eager" to publish their work in these journals, making the relationship a "new and ugly symbiosis" rather than a case of scientists being exploited by "predators".

A study published in January 2018 also found that “Scientists in developing countries believed that reputable Western journals might be biased against them and sometimes felt more comfortable with developing country journals. Other scholars were unaware of the [bad] reputation of the journals they published in and would not have selected them otherwise. However, some scholars said they would have continued to publish in the same journals if their institution had recognized them. The pressure to ' publish or disappear ' is another factor. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate advice and felt they lacked research knowledge to submit their manuscript to a more reputable journal. "

See also

Web links

literature

Broadcast reports

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ tagesschau.de: Research "Fake Science": Science on the wrong track. Retrieved on July 28, 2018 : "The phenomenon [has] been known for several years under the term 'predatory publishers'."
  2. ^ Nadine Eckert: Scientific publications. This is how you recognize robbery journals. In: Deutsches Ärzteblatt. Volume 116, Issue 49, December 6, 2019, p. B 1900 f.
  3. ↑ T. Scott Plutchak: The Health Sciences Publishing Environment. In: Susan K. Kendall (Ed.): Health Sciences Collection Management for the Twenty-First Century. Lanham / Boulder / New York / London 2018, p. 20
  4. ^ John Grant: Corrupted Science: Fraud, Ideology and Politics in Science (Revised & Expanded). Sea Sharp, Tucson 2018, p. 129
  5. ↑ Jeffrey Beall: List of Publishers. Beall's List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. ( Memento from January 11, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Scholarly Open Access - Critical analysis of scholarly open access publishing (since January 2017 actually offline)
  6. ^ Paul Basken: Why Beall's List Died - and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access. In: The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 12, 2017.
  7. ^ Paul Basken: Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died. In: University World News, September 22, 2017.
  8. ^ Stop Predatory Journals
  9. ^ Margaret H. Kearney: Predatory Publishing: What Authors Need to Know. In: Research in Nursing & Health. 38, 2015, pp. 1–3. doi: 10.1002 / only.21640
  10. ↑ Jingfeng Xia, Jennifer L. Harmon, Kevin G. Connolly, Ryan M. Donnelly, Mary R. Anderson, Heather A. Howard: Who publishes in "predatory" journals ?. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66, No. 7, 2014, pp. 1406-1417. doi: 10.1002 / asi.23265
  11. ^ A b Gina Kolata: Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals . In: The New York Times , October 30, 2017. 
  12. ^ A b c Svea Eckert, Peter Hornung: Exclusively in the First: Fake Science - The Liar Makers. NDR, broadcast June 23, 2018.
  13. ↑ a b Gunther Eysenbach: Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog, March 8, 2008 (with postscripts April 21, April 23 and June 3, 2008), accessed on July 21, 2018
  14. ^ Richard Poynder: The Open Access Interviews: Dove Medical Press. Open and shut? (Blog) November 5, 2008, accessed on July 21, 2018 (further interviews with various protagonists of the Open Access movement are linked on Poynder's website ).
  15. ↑ Peter Suber: Ten challenges for open-access journals. In: SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 2009.
  16. ↑ Jeffrey Beall: Bentham Open. The Charleston Advisor. Vol. 11, No. 1, 2009, pp. 29-32 online
  17. ↑ Marc Abrahams: Strange academic journals: Scam? December 22, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
  18. ^ Katharine Sanderson: Two new journals copy the old. In: Nature News. 463, No. 7278, January 13, 2010, pp. 148-148. doi: 10.1038 / 463148a PMID 20075892 . Retrieved April 11, 2013.
  19. ^ Paul Basken: Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center. In: The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 10, 2009.
  20. ^ Alison McCook: US government agency sues publisher, charging it with deceiving researchers. Retraction watch. August 26, 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  21. ↑ Megan Molteni: The FTC is Cracking Down on Predatory Science Journals. In: Wired, September 19, 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  22. ↑ a b Ivan Oransky, Adam Marcus: FTC sues OMICS group: Are predatory publishers' days numbered? September 2, 2016. (Accessed July 21, 2018)
  23. ↑ David C. Shonka: Complaint for permanent injunction and other equitable relief. United States District Court Nevada, Las Vegas, August 25, 2016.
  24. ^ A b Carl Straumsheim: Federal Trade Commission begins to crack down on 'predatory' publishers. Inside Higer Ed News, August 29, 2016, accessed September 3, 2016.
  25. ↑ #FakeScience: Heavy fine for pseudo-scientific publisher , Tagesschau, April 3, 2019
  26. ↑ Bohannon, John (2013): Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science. 342 (6154): 60-65, doi: 10.1126 / science.342.6154.60 , PMID 24092725 ; Data and Documents .
  27. ↑ a b Piotr Sorokowski: Predatory journals recruit fake editor. In: Nature . 22nd March 2017.
  28. ↑ Jeffrey Kluger: Dozens of Scientific Journals Offered Her a Job. But she didn't exist. In: Time , March 22, 2017, accessed July 26, 2018.
  29. ^ Gina Kolata: A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on 'Predatory' Journals. In: The New York Times , March 22, 2017, accessed March 22, 2017.
  30. ^ Alan Burdick: A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on 'Predatory' Journals. In: The New Yorker , March 22, 2017, accessed March 22, 2017.
  31. ↑ breastcancer.conferenceseries.com/ocm/2018/prof-marion-kiechle-department-of-obstetrics-and-gynecology-klinikum-rechts-der-isar-germany (now offline)
  32. ↑ Peter Onneken : Quarks: Fraud instead of cutting-edge research - When scientists cheat. WDR, broadcast July 24, 2018
  33. ^ A b Michael Stratford: "Predatory" Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish. In: The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4, 2012. (paid article)
  34. ^ A b c d Declan Butler: Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. In: Nature. 495, No. 7442, March 27, 2013, pp. 433-435. bibcode : 2013Natur.495..433B doi: 10.1038 / 495433a , PMID 23538810 .
  35. ↑ Basken, Paul (June 10, 2009): Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  36. ↑ Safi, Michael (November 25, 2014), Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list. The Guardian.
  37. ↑ Natasha Gilbert: Editor will quit over hoax paper. In: Nature. June 15, 2009. doi: 10.1038 / news.2009.571
  38. ^ Elliott, Carl (June 5, 2012): On Predatory Publishers: a Q&A With Jeffrey Beall. Brainstorm. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  39. ^ A b Gina Kolata: For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia. In: The New York Times, April 7, 2013.
  40. ^ Ralf Neumann: "Junk Journals" and the "Peter Panne". In: Laborjournal. February 2, 2012.
  41. ↑ Jeffrey Beall (February 11, 2014): Bogus New Impact Factor Appears. 9 Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on October 25, 2014.
  42. ↑ Mehrdad Jalalian; Hamidreza Mahboobi (2013): New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations (PDF). Electronic Physician 5 (3): 685-686.
  43. ^ Stop Predatory Journals
  44. ↑ Beall's criteria are linked here
  45. ↑ a b c Shen, Cenyu; Björk, Bo-Christer (2015-10-01): "Predatory" open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine. 13 (1): 230. doi: 10.1186 / s12916-015-0469-2 ISSN  1741-7015 .
  46. ↑ Carl Straumsheim (October 2015): Study finds huge increase in articles published by "predatory" journals. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
  47. ^ List of Publishers . Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved April 30, 2016. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / scholarlyoa.com
  48. ^ The Downside of Open Access Publishing . In: New England Journal of Medicine . 368, No. 9, 2013, pp. 791-793. doi : 10.1056 / NEJMp1214750 .
  49. ^ Reactionary Rhetoric Against Open Access Publishing . In: tripleC . 12, No. 2, 2014, pp. 441-446.
  50. ↑ Beyond Beall's List . In: College & Research Libraries News . Pp. 132-135. March 2015. Retrieved June 15, 2015.
  51. ^ Karen Coyle: Predatory Publishers - Peer to Peer Review . In: Library Journal . April 4, 2013.
  52. ↑ Response to "Beyond Beall's List" .
  53. ↑ Open-access website gets tough . In: Nature . 512, No. 7512, 2014, p. 17. bibcode : 2014Natur.512 ... 17V . doi : 10.1038 / 512017a . PMID 25100463 .
  54. ↑ Who's afraid of peer review? . In: Science . 342, No. 6154, September, pp. 60-65. bibcode : 2013Sci ... 342 ... 60B . doi : 10.1126 / science.342.6154.60 . PMID 24092725 .
  55. ↑ Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing . In: Nature . 495, No. 7442, 2013, pp. 433-435. bibcode : 2013Natur.495..433B . doi : 10.1038 / 495433a . PMID 23538810 .
  56. ↑ Walt Crawford (July 2014): Journals, 'Journals' and Wannabes: Investigating The List, " Cites & Insights , 14: 7, ISSN  1534-0937
  57. ↑ Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing . In: Nature . 495, No. 7442, 2013, pp. 433-435. bibcode : 2013Natur.495..433B . doi : 10.1038 / 495433a . PMID 23538810 .
  58. ↑ Jake New: Publisher Threatens to Sue Blogger for $ 1-Billion . In: Chronicle of Higher Education , May 15, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2016. 
  59. ↑ Rick Anderson: High Noon - A Publisher Threatens to "Lunch" a Criminal Case Against Librarian Critic . Scholarly Kitchen . May 20, 2013. Retrieved October 24, 2016.
  60. ^ Bill Chappell: Publisher Threatens Librarian With $ 1 Billion Lawsuit . In: National Public Radio , May 15, 2013. Retrieved October 2, 2016. 
  61. ↑ Rohan Venkataramakrishnan: Send Section 66A bullies home . In: India Today . September. Retrieved October 24, 2016.
  62. ↑ Jayant Sriram: SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A . In: The Hindu , March 25, 2015. Retrieved October 24, 2016. 
  63. ^ Retraction Watch: US court issues injunction against OMICS to stop "deceptive practices" . 22nd November 2017.
  64. ^ A b Accredited Journals . Stellenbosch University .
  65. ↑ Jeffrey Beall: What I learned from predatory publishers . In: Biochemia Medica . 27, No. 2, September, pp. 273-278. doi : 10.11613 / bm.2017.029 .
  66. ↑ Shea Swauger: Open access, power, and privilege: A Response to "What I learned from predatory publishing" . In: College & Research Libraries News . 78, No. 11, 2017.
  67. ^ Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch . In: Nature . September. doi : 10.1038 / nature.2017.22090 .
  68. ^ Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review . July 25, 2017.
  69. ↑ Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review (en-US) . In: The Scholarly Kitchen , July 25, 2017. 
  70. ↑ www.cabells.org .
  71. ↑ a b The precarious prevalence of predatory journals ( en ) January 28, 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
  72. ↑ https://predatoryjournals.com/
  73. ↑ Bonnie Swoger: Is this peer reviewed? Predatory journals and the transparency of peer review . Macmillan Publishers Ltd .. November 26, 2014.
  74. ^ Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals . In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . 107, No. 10, September, pp. 384-385. doi : 10.1177 / 0141076814548526 . PMID 25271271 .
  75. ↑ COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing . Committee on Publication Ethics. January 10, 2014.
  76. ↑ Guess that journal . In: Nature . 520, No. 7545, September, pp. 119-120. bibcode : 2015Natur.520..119P . doi : 10.1038 / 520119a . PMID 25832406 .
  77. ^ Quality Open Access Market and Other Initiatives: A Comparative Analysis. Archived from the original on September 21, 2015. In: LIBER Quarterly . 24, No. 4, 2015, p. 162. doi : 10.18352 / lq.9911 .
  78. ↑ Beryl Lieff Benderly: Avoiding fake journals and judging the work in real ones . AAAS. October 13, 2015.
  79. ^ Carl Straumsheim: Awareness Campaign on 'Predatory' Publishing . October 2nd, 2015.
  80. ^ Firm action needed on predatory journals . In: BMJ . 350, 2015, p. H210. doi : 10.1136 / bmj.h210 .
  81. ^ Predatory Publishers . Answers Consulting. 3rd February 2018.
  82. ^ Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access . In: Learned Publishing . 26, No. 2, 2013, pp. 79-83. doi : 10.1087 / 20130203 .
  83. ↑ Cristobal Cobo: (Gold) Open Access: the two sides of the coin . University of Oxford. 17th November 2014.
  84. ↑ Unethical Practices in Scholarly, open-access publishing . In: Journal of Information Ethics . 22, No. 1, 2013, pp. 11-20. doi : 10.3172 / jie.22.1.11 .
  85. ↑ How to better achieve integrity in science publishing . In: European Science Editing . 39, No. 4, 2013, p. 97.
  86. ^ Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators . In: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication . 2, No. 2, 2014, p. EP1133. doi : 10.7710 / 2162-3309.1133 .
  87. ^ "Predatory Publishers: What Editors Need to Know." Nurse Author & Editor , September 2014. [1] . Republished as open access in: Predatory Publishing . In: Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health . 59, No. 6, 2014, pp. 569-571. doi : 10.1111 / jmwh.12273 .
  88. ↑ M Weir Meijer: Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals. . In: Master's thesis at the University of Leiden , August 27, 2014. 
  89. ^ The Problem of Publication-Pollution Denialism . In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings . 90, No. 5, 2015, pp. 565-566. doi : 10.1016 / j.mayocp.2015.02.017 .
  90. ↑ Rick Anderson: Should We Retire the Term "Predatory Publishing"? . Society for Scholarly Publishing . May 11, 2015.
  91. ↑ Serhat Kurt: Why do authors publish in predatory journals? . In: Learned Publishing . 31, No. 2, 2018, pp. 141–147. doi : 10.1002 / leap.1150 .