What Value Do Journal Whitelists and Blacklists Have in Academia?

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 781-792

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Tsigaris, Panagiotis ^b  

^a Miki cho Post Office   (Japan)

^b THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Banning; Blacklists; Discrimination; False discovery rate; False positives and negatives; Open access; Predatory publishing; Probability; Quality assessment; Uncertainty; Whitelists

Indexed keywords

EID: 85055119928     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A., What rights do authors have?. Science and Engineering Ethics 23:3 (2017), 947–949 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8 Accessed date: August 2018.
2. Amaral, O.B., All publishers are predatory – Some are bigger than others. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 2018, 10.1590/0001-3765201820170959 (in press) Retrieved from. Accessed date: August 2018.
3. Beall, J., The open-access movement is not really about open access. tripleC 11:2 (2013), 589–597 Retrieved from https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525 accessed date: August 2018.
4. Beall, J., Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534, 2016, 326 Retrieved from doi.org/10.1038/534326a accessed date: August 2018.
5. Beall, J., What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica 27:2 (2017), 273–279 Retrieved from 10.11613/BM.2017.029 accessed date: August 2018.
6. Benjamin, D.J., Berger, J.O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B.A., Wagenmakers, E.J., Berk, R., Cesarini, D., Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour 2:1 (2018), 6–10 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z accessed date: August 2018.
7. Berger, M., Cirasella, J., Beyond Beall's list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries 76:3 (2015), 132–135 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277 Accessed date: August 2018.
8. Bernstein, A., The hidden costs of terrorist watch lists. Buffalo Law Review 61:3 (2013), 461–535 Retrieved from http://www.buffalolawreview.org/past_issues/61_3/Bernstein.pdf accessed date: August 2018.
9. Bisaccio, M., Cabells' journal whitelist and blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing 31:3 (2018), 243–248 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1164 accessed date: August 2018.
10. Blagosklonny, M.V., Librarians against scientists: Oncotarget's lesson. Oncotarget 9:5 (2018), 5515–5516 Retrieved from 10.18632/oncotarget.24272 accessed date: August 2018.
11. Boutron, I., Ravaud, P., Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115:11 (2018), 2613–2619 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710755115 accessed date: August 2018.
12. Cappell, M.S., List predatory journal publications separately from genuine scholarly publications as standard for CVs. BMJ, 350, 2015, h2470 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2470 Accessed date: August 2018.
13. Colquhoun, D., An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. Royal Society Open Science, 1(3), 2014, 140216 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140216 accessed date: August 2018.
14. Cyranoski, D., China introduces sweeping reforms to crack down on academic misconduct. Nature, 558, 2018, 171 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05359-8 accessed date: August 2018.
15. Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Publishing 31:2 (2018), 181–183 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1135 accessed date: August 2018.
16. Fanelli, D., Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 10.1073/pnas.1708272114 (in press). Retrieved from. accessed date: August 2018.
17. Frandsen, T.F., Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics 113:3 (2017), 1513–1528 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x accessed date: August 2018.
18. Haber, N., Smith, E.R., Moscoe, E., Andrews, K., Audy, R., Bell, W., Suarez, E.A., on behalf of the CLAIMS research team, Causal language and strength of inference in academic and media articles shared in social media (CLAIMS): A systematic review. PLoS One, 13(5), 2018, e0196346 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196346 accessed date: August 2018.
19. Hoffecker, L., Cabells scholarly analytics. Journal of the Medical Library Association 106:2 (2018), 270–272 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.403 accessed date: August 2018.
20. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 2005, e124 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 accessed date: August 2018.
21. Ioannidis, J.P., Stanley, T.D., Doucouliagos, H., The power of bias in economics research. The Economic Journal 127:605 (2017), F236–F265 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12461 accessed date: August 2018.
22. Kuhar, M.J., On blacklisting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 14:3 (2008), 301–303 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9082-5 accessed date: August 2018.
23. Kuhar, M.J., Blacklisting among scientists. Synapse, 63(7), 2009, 539 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/syn.20638 accessed date: August 2018.
24. Manca, A., Cugusi, L., Dvir, Z., Deriu, F., PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion. The Lancet 390:10096 (2017), 734–735 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31943-8 accessed date: August 2018.
25. Maxim, L.D., Niebo, R., Utell, M.J., Screening tests: A review with examples. Inhalation Toxicology 26:13 (2014), 811–828 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2014.955932 accessed date: August 2018.
26. Mimouni, M., Braun, E., Mimouni, F.B., Mimouni, D., Blumenthal, E.Z., Beall's list [sic] removed: What stands between us and open access predators?. American Journal of Medicine 130:8 (2017), e371–e372 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.040 accessed date: August 2018.
27. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M.M., Galipeau, J., Avey, M.T., Ziai, H., Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature 549:7670 (2017), 23–25 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/549023a accessed date: August 2018.
28. Olivarez, J.D., Bales, S., Sare, L., vanDuinkerken, W., Format aside: Applying Beall's criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries 79:1 (2018), 52–67 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52 accessed date: August 2018.
29. Patwardhan, B., Nagarkar, S., Gadre, S.R., Lakhotia, S.C., Katoch, V.M., Moher, D., A critical analysis of the ‘UGC-approved list of journals’. Current Science 114:6 (2018), 1299–1303 Retrieved from 10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1299-1303 accessed date: August 2018.
30. Pyne, D., The rewards of predatory publishing at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 48:3 (2017), 137–160 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.48.3.137 Accessed date: August 2018.
31. Rele, S., Kennedy, M., Blas, N., Journal Evaluation Tool, 40, 2017 LMU Librarian Publications & Presentations. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/40 accessed date: August 2018.
32. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Shea, B.J., Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15, 2017, 28 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 Accessed date: August 2018.
33. Swauger, S., Open access, power, and privilege. A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”. College & Research Libraries News 78:11 (2017), 603–607 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603 accessed date: August 2018.
34. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7:special issue 1 (2013), 21–34 Retrieved from http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)21-34o.pdf accessed date: August 2018.
35. Teixeira Da Silva, J.A., The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine 1:2 (2016), 214–215 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/jim-2016-0031 accessed date: August 2018.
36. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing lists. AME Medical Journal, 2, 2017, 97 Retrieved from 10.21037/amj.2017.06.14 Accessed date: August 2018.
37. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” lists must not be used: they are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate. Bibliothecae.it 6:1 (2017), 425–436 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2283-9364/7044 accessed date: August 2018.
38. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Issues with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 4:2 (2017), 54–67 Retrieved from http://www.kadint.net/journals_n/1509180760.pdf accessed date: August 2018.
39. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., The Journal Impact Factor (JIF): Science publishing's miscalculating metric. Academic Questions 30:4 (2017), 433–441 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-017-9671-3 accessed date: August 2018.
40. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., The illicit and illegitimate continued use of Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access black lists. Journal of Radical Librarianship 4:1 (2018), 1–5 Retrieved from https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/28 accessed date: August 2018.
41. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., The ethical and academic implications of the Jeffrey Beall (www.scholarlyoa.com) blog shutdown. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2018, 10.1007/s11948-017-9905-3 (in press). Retrieved from. accessed date: August 2018.
42. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Freedom of speech and public shaming by the science watchdogs. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 5:1 (2018), 11–22 Retrieved from http://www.kadint.net/journals_n/1528375305.pdf accessed date: August 2018.
43. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Why does retraction watch continue to offer support to Jeffrey Beall, and legitimize his post-mortem “predatory” lists?. KOME 5:1 (2017), 147–152 Retrieved from 10.17646/KOME.2017.19 Accessed date: August 2018.
44. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A., Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon's hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME 4:1 (2016), 84–88 Retrieved from 10.17646/KOME.2016.16 accessed date: August 2018.
45. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Memon, A.R., CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?. Scientometrics 111:1 (2017), 553–556 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2250-0 accessed date: August 2018.
46. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Shaughnessy, M.F., An interview with Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva: insight into improving the efficiency of the publication process. North American Journal of Psychology 19 (2017), 325–338 Retrieved from http://najp.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Vol.-19-Issue-2.pdf Accessed date: August 2018.
47. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Tsigaris, P., Academics must list all publications on their CV. KOME 6:1 (2018), 94–99 Retrieved from 10.17646/KOME.2018.16 Accessed date: August 2018.
48. Umlauf, M.G., Mochizuki, Y., Predatory publishing and cybercrime targeting academics. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 24(S1), 2018, e12656 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12656 accessed date: August 2018.
49. Wager, E., Why we should worry less about predatory publishers and more about the quality of research and training at our academic institutions. Journal of Epidemiology 27:3 (2017), 87–88 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je.2017.01.001 accessed date: August 2018.
50. Wicherts, J.M., The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them). Animals, 7, 2017, 90 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120090 accessed date: August 2018.