Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true

Nursing Forum

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 336-339

  Edie, Alison H ^a   Conklin, Jamie L ^b,c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

controversy; education; ethics moral courage; professional issues; quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COURAGE; EDUCATION; ERROR; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORALITY; NURSING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 85062336155     PISSN: 00296473     EISSN: 17446198     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nuf.12333     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Ali PA, Watson R. Peer review and the publication process. Nurs Open. 2016;3(4):193-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.51
2. Oermann M, Hayes J. Writing for Publication. 4th ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2017.
3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2018). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing. Accessed February 22, 2019.
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2017). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2019.
5. Nicoll, L., Miller, E., Pierson, C., et al. (2016). Best Practices for Journal Websites. https://nursingeditors.com/inane-initiatives/best-practices-for-journal-websites-2/. Accessed February 22, 2019.
6. INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative. Predatory publishing: what editors need to know. Nurse Author Ed. 2014;24(3):2. http://naepub.com/predatory-publishing/2014-24-3-2/
7. Oermann MH, Conklin JL, Nicoll LH, et al. Study of predatory open access nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016;48(6):624-632.
8. Wicherts JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLOS One. 2016;11(1):e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
9. Oermann MH, Nicoll LH, Chinn PL, et al. Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nurs Outlook. 2018;66:4-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005
10. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-access Publishers. https://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf. https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2019.
11. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
12. Markowitz, D. M., Powell J. H., Hancock J. T. (2014). The Writing Style of Predatory Publishers. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://www.asee.org/file_server/papers/…/file/…/ASEE_RR_3_10_2014_FINAL.pdf 2014. Accessed February 22, 2019.