Erratum: Are Predatory Conferences the Dark Side of the Open Access Movement (Aesthet Surg J. (2017) 37: 6 (734-738)DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjw247);Are predatory conferences the dark side of the open access movement?

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 734-738

  Cress, Phaedra E ^a  

^a American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYALURONIC ACID;

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; FUNDING; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PLASTIC SURGERY; PREDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; ANIMAL; ECONOMICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING;

EID: 85041766789     PISSN: 1090820X     EISSN: 1527330X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjy323     Document Type: Erratum

References (16)

1. Beall J. Beall’s list of predatory publishers. Scholarly Open Access Web site. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/. Updated January 5, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2016.
2. Kolata G. Scientific articles accepted (personal checks too). The New York Times. April 7, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-explod-ing-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=1&_ r=1&ref=todayspaper. Accessed October 31, 2016.
3. Nahai F. The rise of predatory journals: what difference does it make? Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(8):1042-1043.
4. Reid C, Cress P. Update on Scholarly Publication Ethics: Navigating the Confusing Landscape. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(10):1195-1197.
5. Nahai F. Where authors choose to publish. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(2):253-255.
6. Dadkhah M, Borchardt G. Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(6):739-741.
7. Gowda AU, Tadisina KK, Chopra K, Singh DP. Submission bias and the rise of open access journals. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(8):NP275- NP276.
8. McCrostie J. Scholarly Open Access Web site. Proposed criteria for identifying predatory conferences. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/23/proposed-criteria-for-identifying-predatory-conferences/. Updated June 23, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2016.
9. McCrostie J. Taiwan’s great academic rip-off. Taipei Times. August 3, 2016. http://www.Taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2016/08/03/2003652340. Accessed October 31, 2016.
10. Harbison M. Bonus academic conferences lure scientists—because fake scientific journals weren’t gnarly enough. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/scien-tists-duped-fake-academic-conferences Updated April 9, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2016.
11. Scholarly Open Access Web site. Another Taiwan-based mega-scholarly conference organizer emerges. https://scholarlyoa.com/tag/predatory-conferences/. Updated July 14, 2015. Accessed October 31, 2016.
12. Beall J, Levine R. Scholarly Open Access Web site. https://www.scholarlyoa.com/?s=omics+predatory+meetings. Updated January 25, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2016
13. McCrostie J. ‘Predatory conferences’ stalk Japan’s groves of academia. May 11, 2016. http://www.Japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/05/11/issues/predatory-confer-ences-stalk-Japans-groves-academia/#.WCosVRIrKcw Accessed October 31, 2016.
14. Lake L. Federal Trade Commission Web site. Academics and scientists: beware of predatory journal publishers. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/academics-and-scientists-beware-predatory-journal-publishers. Updated August 26, 2016. Accessed November 10, 2016
15. Brooks M. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Red-flag conferences. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Red-Flag-Conferences/44795/. Updated March 26, 2009. Accessed November 10, 2016.
16. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179.