Fraud in Academic Publishing: Researchers Under Cyber-Attacks

American Journal of Medicine

Volumn 130, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 27-30

  Dadkhah, Mehdi ^a   Borchardt, Glenn ^b   Maliszewski, Tomasz ^c  

^a Independent Research Scientist   (Iran)

^b Progressive Science Institute   (United States)

^c POMERANIAN UNIVERSITY IN S UPSK   (Poland)

Author keywords

Bogus metric; Fraud; Predatory journal; Spam e mail

Indexed keywords

CRIME; CYBERCRIME; E-MAIL; FRAUD; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OFFENDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; THREAT; COMPUTER SECURITY; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

COMPUTER SECURITY; FRAUD; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84993940072     PISSN: 00029343     EISSN: 15557162     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.030     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. 1 Moher, D., Srivastava, A., You are invited to submit. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 180.
2. 2 Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Gasparyan, A.Y., Kitas, G.D., Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int 32:7 (2012), 1861–1867.
3. 3 Gutierrez, F.R., Beall, J., Forero, D.A., Spurious alternative impact factors: the scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays 37:5 (2015), 474–476.
4. 4 Jalalian, M., The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electron Physician, 7(2), 2015, 1069.
5. 5 Mooloo, D., Fowdur, T.P., An SSL-based client-oriented anti-spoofing email application. 2013, AFRICON, Pointe-aux-Piments, Mauritius, 1–5.
6. 6 Harrison, B., Svetieva, E., Vishwanath, A., Individual processing of phishing emails: How attention and elaboration protect against phishing. Online Inf Rev 40:2 (2016), 265–281.