Predatory Journals in Library Databases: How Much Should We Worry?

Serials Librarian

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 169-192

  Nelson, Nerissa ^a   Huffman, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN STEVENS POINT   (United States)

Author keywords

Beall s List; journal databases; library instruction; Open Access publishing; peer review; predatory journals; predatory publishers

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944238958     PISSN: 0361526X     EISSN: 15411095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Jeffrey Beall, “Predatory Publishers are Corrupting Open Access,” Nature 489, (2012b): 179. doi:10.1038/489179a.
2. Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002, http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed May 2, 2015).
3. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, 2003, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm (accessed May 2, 2015).
4. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), “Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework,” http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/ (accessed July 30, 2015).
5. Mary Ellen McIntire, “Librarians Leap to the Aid of Researchers Whose Funding Will Soon Depend on Open Access,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, 2015, http://chronicle.com/article/Librarians-Leap-to-the-Aid-of/231997/ (accessed May 2, 2015).
6. Steven Totosy de Zepetnek and Joshua Jia, “Electronic Journals, Prestige, and the Economics of Academic Journal Publishing,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 16, no. 1 (2014): 1–13;
7. E. C. Moylan, S. Harold, C. O’Neill, and M. K. Kowalczuk, “Open, Single-blind, Double-blind: Which Peer Review Process Do You Prefer? Which Peer Review Process Do You Prefer?” BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology 15 (2014): 55–60. doi:10.1186/2050-6511-15-55;
8. Catherine Sharp, “Building a Successful Service: Developing Open Access Funding and Advocacy at University College London,” The Serials Librarian 67 (2014): 276–288. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.954298;
9. Abby Colbridge, “Open Access: Progress, Possibilities, and the Changing Scholarly Communications Ecosystem,” Online Searcher 38, no. 2 (2014): 42–52;
10. Bernard Forgues and Sebastien Liarte, “Academic Publishing: Past and Future,” Management 16, no. 5 (2013): 739–756. doi:10.3917/mana.165.0739.
11. Matt Enis, “Uncommonly Open,” Library Journal 138, no. 11 (2013): 38–40.
12. Stevan Harnad, “The Self-Archiving Initiative: Freeing the Refereed Research Literature Online,” Nature 410, (2001): 1024–1025. doi:10.1038/35074210;
13. M. M. Quinn, “Open Access in Scholarly Publishing: Embracing Principles and Avoiding Pitfalls,” The Serials Librarian 69, no. 1 (2015): 58–69. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036197.
14. Jeffrey Beall, “Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing,” Journal of Information Ethics 22, no. 1 (2013): 11–20. doi:10.3172/JIE.22.1.11;
15. Sarah Beaubien and Max Eckard, “Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators,” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 2, no. 2 (2014). doi:10.7710/2162-3309;
16. Declan Butler, “Investigating Journals: The Dark Side of Publishing,” Nature 495 (2013): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a;
17. Frank Truth, “Pay Big to Publish Fast: Academic Journal Rackets,” Journal of Critical Education and Policy Studies 10, no. 2 (2012).
18. Adam Etkin, “A New Method and Metric to Evaluate the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Journals,” Publishing Research Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2014): 23–38. doi:10.1007/s12109-013-9339-y.
19. Declan Butler, “Investigating Journals: The Dark Side of Publishing,” Nature 495 (2013): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a.
20. Etkin, A New Method, 23–38.
21. Stevan Harnad, “The Self-Archiving Initiative: Freeing the Refereed Research Literature Online,” Nature 410, (2001): 1024–1025. doi:10.1038/35074210.
22. Zepetnek et al., Electronic Journals, Prestige, 7.
23. Thomas P. Gould, Do We Still Need Peer Review? (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2013).
24. Ana Fresco-Santalla and T. Hernández-Pérez, “Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review,” The Serials Librarian 67 (2014): 373–398. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415.
25. Michael Q. Dudley, “The Curious Case of Academic Publishing,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 8, no. 1 (2013).
26. A. O. Omobowale, O. Akanle, A. I. Adeniran, and K. Adegboyega, “Peripheral Scholarship and the Context of Foreign Paid Publishing in Nigeria,” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (2014): 666–684. doi:10.1177/0011392113508127.
27. Scott Warren and Kim Duckett, “Why Does Google Scholar Sometimes Ask for Money? Engaging Science Students in Scholarly Communication and the Economics of Information,” Journal of Library Administration 50, (2010): 349–372. doi:10.1080/01930821003667021.
28. Warren et al., Why Does Google Scholar, 349–372.
29. Warren et al., Why Does Google Scholar, 439–372.
30. Margy MacMillan and Allison MacKenzie, “Strategies for Integrating Information Literacy and Academic Literacy: Helping Undergraduate Students Make the Most of Scholarly Articles,” Library Management 33.8(9): 525–535. doi:10.1108/01435121211279885.
31. Linlin Zhao, “Riding the Wave of Open Access: Providing Library Research Support for Scholarly Publishing Literacy,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 45, no. 1 (2014): 3–18. doi:10.1080/00048623.2014.882873.
32. Michael Q. Dudley, “The Curious Case of Academic Publishing,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 8, no. 1 (2013).
33. Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella, “Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers,” College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 3 (2015): 132–135.
34. Jeffrey Beall, “List of Publishers: Beall’s List,” Scholarly Open Access, 2015, http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ (accessed March 17 and April 21, 2015).
35. Erin Bornemann, “Exposing Predatory Publishers,” Information Today 30, no. 6 (2013): 13.
36. Jeffrey Beall, “Five Scholarly Open Access Publishers,” The Charleston Advisor 13 (2012): 5–10. doi:10.5260/chara.13.4.5.
37. Bornemann, “Exposing Predatory Publishers,” 13.
38. Walt Crawford, “Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall,” Cites & Insights 14, no. 4 (2014): 1–14;
39. Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella, “Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers,” College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 3 (2015): 132–135.
40. Gale Cengage Learning, “Academic OneFile,” Gale Cengage Learning, n.d. http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do?Ntt=onefile|129663692219470930731132330063644714198&N=197&Ntk=APG%7CP_EPI&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial#Overview (accessed March 16, 2015).
41. EBSCO, “Academic Search Complete,” EBSCO, 2015, http://www.ebscohost.com/academic/academic-search-complete (accessed March 16, 2015).
42. Jeffrey Beall, “List of Publishers: Beall’s List,” Scholarly Open Access, 2015, http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ (accessed March 17 and 21 April 2015).
43. DOAJ, “Directory of Open Access Journals,” Directory of Open Access Journals, 2015, http://doaj.org/ (accessed March 16, 2015).
44. ProQuest, “Databases,” ProQuest Central, n.d., http://www.proquest.com/libraries/academic/databases/ProQuest_Central.html (accessed March 16, 2015).
45. Jeffrey Beall, “List of Publishers: Beall’s List,” Scholarly Open Access, 2014, http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ (accessed May 19, 2014).
46. EBSCO, “Title Lists,” EBSCO, 2014, http://www.ebscohost.com/title-lists (accessed May 19, 2014);
47. Gale Cengage Learning, “Database Title Lists,” Gale Cengage Learning, 2014, http://solutions.cengage.com/Gale/Database-Title-Lists/ (accessed September 30, 2014);
48. DOAJ, “Download Metadata,” Directory of Open Access Journals, 2014, http://doaj.org/faq#metadata (accessed May 20, 2014);
49. Kim Levicki, e-mail message to Jennifer Huffman, May 22, 2014.
50. Linlin Zhao, “Riding the Wave of Open Access,” 3–18.