Predatory publishing is a threat to non-mainstream science

Journal of Korean Medical Science

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 713-717

  Gasparyan, Armen Yuri ^a   Nurmashev, Bekaidar ^b   Udovik, Elena E ^c   Koroleva, Anna M ^d   Kitas, George D ^a,e  

^a RUSSELLS HALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy ^*  (Kazakhstan)

^c KUBAN STATE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^d TYUMEN INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bibliographic databases; Non mainstream science; Periodicals as topic; Publication ethics

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; ETHICS; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85017546327     PISSN: 10118934     EISSN: 15986357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.713     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Laakso M, Björk BC. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med 2012; 10: 124.
2. Kurata K, Morioka T, Yokoi K, Matsubayashi M. Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One 2013; 8: e60925.
3. Van Noorden R. Open-access website gets tough. Nature 2014; 512: 17.
4. Directory of Open Access Journals (SE). DOAJ to remove approximately 3300 journals [Internet]. Available at https://doajournals.wordpress.com/ 2016/05/09/doaj-to-remove-approximately-3300-journals/ [accessed on 21 February 2017].
5. Directory of Open Access Journals (SE). About DOAJ [Internet]. Available at https://doaj.org/about [accessed on 21 February 2017].
6. Vogel G. Scientific publishing. Open access gains support; fees and journal quality deter submissions. Science 2011; 331: 273.
7. Seethapathy GS, Santhosh Kumar JU, Hareesha AS. India's scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Curr Sci 2016; 111: 1759-64.
8. Sarewitz D. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature 2016; 533: 147.
9. Thakuria B, Saikia P. Predatory publisher and impact factor: the murky landscape of scholastic publication. Indian J Med Microbiol 2016; 34: 392-3.
10. de Jong G. Reasons to temper enthusiasm about open access nursing journals. Contemp Nurse Forthcoming 2016.
11. Baydik OD, Gasparyan AY. How to act when research misconduct is not detected by software but revealed by the author of the plagiarized article. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31: 1508-10.
12. Dhulkhed VK, Kurdi MS, Dhulkhed PV, Ramaswamy AH. Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: can we improve the criteria? Indian J Anaesth 2016; 60: 796-800.
13. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Open access: changing global science publishing. Croat Med J 2013; 54: 403-6.
14. Matheka DM, Nderitu J, Mutonga D, Otiti MI, Siegel K, Demaio AR. Open access: academic publishing and its implications for knowledge equity in Kenya. Global Health 2014; 10: 26.
15. Duncan FE, Derman B, Woodruff TK. A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 511-20.
16. Abadal E. Gold or green: the debate on open access policies. Int Microbiol 2013; 16: 199-203.
17. Škoric L, Vrkic D, Petrak J. Current state of open access to journal publications from the University of Zagreb School of Medicine. Croat Med J 2016; 57: 71-6.
18. Seo JW, Chung H, Yun J, Park JY, Park E, Ahn Y. Usage trends of open access and local journals: a Korean case study. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0155843.
19. Sabharwal S, Patel N, Johal K. Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 1297-302.
20. Yammine K. Open access of evidence-based publications: the case of the orthopedic and musculoskeletal literature. J Evid Based Med 2015; 8: 181-4.
21. Kale NS, Haug K, Conesa P, Jayseelan K, Moreno P, Rocca-Serra P, Nainala VC, Spicer RA, Williams M, Li X, et al. MetaboLights: an open-access database repository for metabolomics data. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 2016; 53: 14.13.1-18.
22. Fredericks S. Questioning the efficacy of 'gold' open access to published articles. Nurse Res 2015; 22: 8-10.
23. Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13: 230.
24. Scholarly Open Access. Beall's list: potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers [Internet]. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ [accessed on 21 February 2017].
25. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science 2013; 342: 60-5.
26. Beall J. Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31: 1511-3.
27. Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. The pressure to publish more and the scope of predatory publishing activities. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31: 1874-8.
28. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F. Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Forthcoming 2017.
29. Oermann MH, Conklin JL, Nicoll LH, Chinn PL, Ashton KS, Edie AH, Amarasekara S, Budinger SC. Study of predatory open access nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2016; 48: 624-32.
30. Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit.. BMC Med 2015; 13: 180.
31. Mašic I, Begic E, Donev DM, Gajovic S, Gasparyan AY, Jakovljevic M, Miloševic DB, Sinanovic O, Sokolovic Š, Uzunovic S, et al. Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croat Med J 2016; 57: 527-9.
32. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A scopus-based analysis of publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30: 1915-9.
33. Gurov AN, Goncharova YG, Bubyakin GB. Open access to scientific knowledge: Its state, problems, and prospects of development. Sci Tech Inf Process 2016; 43: 88-94.
34. Cornell A, Bushman B, Womack K. Analysis of journals that did not meet selection criteria for inclusion in the National Library of Medicine collection but have manuscripts in PubMed Central. J Med Libr Assoc 2011; 99: 168-70.
35. Murlimanju BV, Prabhu LV, Prameela MD, Pai MM, Saralaya VV. What is indexing? Indian J Orthop 2016; 50: 577-8.
36. Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín JM, Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: analysis of Beall's list. Prof Inf 2016; 25: 730-7.
37. Harvey HB, Weinstein DF. Predatory publishing: an emerging threat to the medical literature. Acad Med 2017; 92: 150-1.
38. Oransky I, Marcus A. A famed journal blacklist is dead. Long live a blacklist! [Internet]. Available at https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/27/journal-predatory-blacklist/ [accessed on 21 February 2017].
39. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals [Internet]. Available at http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals [accessed on 21 February 2017].