End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 1339-1345

  Memon, Aamir Raoof ^a  

^a University of Sindh   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

Journal; Predatory; Publishers; Research fraud; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

FRAUD; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

FRAUD; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85019197077     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Beall, J. (2016). Don’t use pubmed as a journal whitelist. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/20/dont-use-pubmed-as-a-journal-whitelist/. Accessed on 5 January 2017
2. Beall, J. (2017). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2017. https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/. Accessed on 5 January 2017
3. Bornmann, L., & Pudovkin, A. I. (2017). The journal impact factor should not be discarded. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(2), 180–182. doi:10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.180
4. Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210
5. Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., & Lagzian, M. (2016). Do you ignore information security in your journal website? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9849-z
6. Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: Leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647
7. Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. El Profesional de la Información, 25(5), 730–737
8. Sorooshian, S. (2016a). Conference wolves in sheep’s clothing. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9788-8
9. Sorooshian, S. (2016b). Scholarly black market. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9765-2
10. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Retraction watch is apparently not interested in retractions. The Experiment, 38(3), 2306–2309
11. Van Noorden, R. (2016). Controversial impact factor gets a heavy weight rival. Nature, 540(7633), 325–326. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21131
12. Vitiello, M. V., & Krieger, J. (2016). Continued growth, a new metric, same high quality! Sleep Medicine Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2016.12.005
13. Winker, M. A. (2016). Stop predatory publishers now. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 826. doi:10.7326/l16-0416
14. Zijlstra, H., & McCullough, R. (2016). CiteScore: a new metric to help you track journal performance and ma ke decisions. https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal. Accessed on 4 January 2017