Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Volumn 78, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1-6

  Bowman, John D ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Open access; Peer review; Scientific conferences; Scientific publishing

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FRAUD; HUMAN; INTERNET; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; FRAUD; HUMANS; INTERNET; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84921837535     PISSN: 00029459     EISSN: 15536467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7810176     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Munroe R. The rise of open access. Science. 2013;342(6154):58-9.
2. NIH Public Access Policy Details, National Institutes of Health. http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm. Accessed Jan. 27, 2014.
3. Seber P. Open Access Overview. 2013. http://legacy.earlham.edu/;peters/fos/overview.htm. Accessed February 17, 2014.
4. Creative Commons. http://us.creativecommons.org/Accessed May 19, 2014.
5. Directory of Open Access Journals. http://doaj.org/. Accessed March 28, 2014.
6. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B-C, Hedlund T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE. Vol. 6; 2011:e20961.
7. Odell J, Whipple EC. The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing: Will Radiation Research Survive? Radiat Res. 2013;180 (4):335-9.
8. Prosser D. Between a rock and a hard place: the big squeeze for small publishers. Learn Publ. 2004;17(1):17-22.
9. Lewin DI. Online science journals: a net gain? http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/lewin.html. Accessed March 29, 2014.
10. Van Noorden R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426-9.
11. Sabharwal S, Patel N, Johal K. Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop. Jan 3 2014.
12. Grainger D. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5199-203.
13. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 9// 1998;32(3):310-7.
14. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C. Saint Matthew strikes again: An agentbased model of peer review and the scientific community structure. Journal of Informetrics.4// 2012;6(2):265-75.
15. Danthi N, Wu CO, Shi P, Lauer M. Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded cardiovascular R01 grants. Circulation research. Feb 14 2014;114(4):600-6.
16. Fisher RS, Powers LE. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside. Epilepsia. 2004;45(8):889-94.
17. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. Sep 2001;76(9):889-96.
18. Peer-to-Peer Blog. NatureInsight. http://blogs.nature.com/peerto-peer/. Accessed March 29, 2014.
19. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature News. 2012;489:179.
20. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342 (6154):60-5.
21. Beall J. Scholarly Open Access. http://scholarlyoa.com. Accessed February 4, 2014.
22. Beall J. Five Scholarly Open Access Publishers. The Charleston Advisor. 2012;13:5-10.
23. Bjork B-C, Solomon, D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012;10:73.
24. Coyle K. Predatory Publishers j Peer to Peer Review. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/opinion/peer-to-peer-review/predatorypublishers-peer-to-peer-review/. Accessed February 5, 2014.
25. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. The New England journal of medicine. 2013;368(9):791-3.
26. Gilbert N. Editor will quit over hoax paper. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html. Accessed February 5, 2014.
27. Van Noorden R. Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature News. 2013;500:510.
28. Van Noorden R. Record number of journals banned for boosting impact factor with self-citations. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/ 06/record-number-of-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factorwith-self-citations.html. Accessed February 5, 2014.
29. Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D. The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014;65(3):446-54.
30. Kolata G. Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-anexploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?_r52&. Accessed February 7, 2014.
31. Bogus Conferences. http://bogus-conferences.blogspot.com/. Accessed February 17, 2014.
32. Brooks M. Red-Flag Conferences, The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 26, 2009. Available at: https://chronicle.com/article/Red-Flag-Conferences/44795/. Accessed February 7, 2014.
33. Con-ferences. www.scamorama.com. Accessed February 4, 2014.
34. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, Fiack S, Scott-Lichter D, Robinson A. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher’s perspective. International journal of clinical practice Supplement. Jan 2007(152):1-26.
35. Roberts J. An Author’s Guide to Publication Ethics: A Review of Emerging Standards in Biomedical Journals. Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain. 2009;49(4):578-89.
36. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. Aug 2011;42(1):1-13.