Showing papers by "Jeffrey Beall published in 2013"

Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access

Abstract: This article examines the ways the gold open-access model is negatively affecting scholarly communication.

Medical Publishing Triage – Chronicling Predatory Open Access Publishers

Abstract: This editorial examines the problem of predatory publishers and how they have negatively affected scholarly communication. Society relies on high-quality, peer-reviewed articles for public policy, legal cases, and improving the public health. Researchers need to be aware of how predatory publishers operate and need to avoid falling into their traps. The editorial examines the recent history of predatory publishers and how they have become prominent in the world of scholarly journals.

The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access

Abstract: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.

Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing

Abstract: IntroductionThe scholarly publishing industry has witnessed the appearance of numerous scholarly, open- access publishers, an innovation that has made many thousands and even millions of scholarly articles available for free over the Internet. The open- access movement has benefitted from the goodwill of countless authors, organizations, funding agencies, and open- access repositories. Unfortunately, as with any large- scale innovation, there has emerged a cadre of racketeers, distributed worldwide, who seek to exploit the open- access (OA) model for their own financial gain. These unscrupulous publishers abuse the authorpays model of open access publishing only for their own profit, engaging in dishonest, deceptive, and unethical practices, and mocking the goodwill of those who promote scholarly, open- access publishing. This article identifies and examines unethical practices in scholarly, open- access publishing, limiting its focus to those publishers employing the gold "author- pays" model.Etiology of the Unethical PracticesOne of the sources of the current problem is the common belief or assumption that all open- access publishing is meritorious, benevolent, and wellintentioned, a belief promoted by librarians and others backing the open- access movement. Many academic librarians blindly and comprehensively promote scholarly, open- access publishing, which means they are partially promoting publishers committing unethical practices.The nature of gold open- access publishing means that those who promote the model must qualify their recommendations. In the traditional scholarly publication model, the market served to prevent or eliminate publishers that engaged in unethical practices; that market control is non- existent in the openaccess model, especially given the minimal startup barriers and low operating costs of open- access publishing. For example, no library would pay for a journal known to be bogus, but bogus journals that are free are unbounded by the startup cost barrier. And because predatory publishers are masters of deception, it is easy for them to fool submitting authors into thinking they are legitimate. Moreover, in the online environment it is especially easy for an unethical publisher to appear legitimate. Also, the very nature of the author- pays model is a conflict of interest; the more articles a gold OA publisher accepts, the more money it earns.Reading a bibliography, vita, or list of published works, it is hard to identify journals from unethical publishers. The titles they use mimic those of legitimate journals and begin with phrases such as "International Journal of...." This sideby- side placement of both legitimate and illegitimate journals is a loss, for no longer can one assume that an unfamiliar but legitimate sounding journal is in fact legitimate; further investigation is required, creating new burdens for those engaged in the evaluation of scholarly activities or in judging research grant applications.Other StudiesThe problem of fraudulent open- access publishers is a relatively new one, and few authors have covered it. The review journal The Charleston Advisor has published several of this writer's reviews of these publishers. In 2009, it pub - lished this writer's review of Bentham Open (Beall, 2009). In 2010, the journal published a collective review of nine publishers, and it is in this review that this author coined the term "predatory open- access publishers." "We use the term 'predatory' cautiously, primarily in an attempt to initially categorize a certain class of Open- Access, scholarly publishers with like characteristics" (Beall, 2010a, pp. 14-15). A later update to this article examined three additional publishers this author identified as predatory (Beall, 2010b). Writing in 2011, this author reviewed the Texas- based publisher Internet Scientific Publications (Beall, 2011).The 2010 version of the International Mathematical Union's Best Current Practices for Journals (2011) alludes to predatory publishers, saying, "The proliferation of poorly run mathematical journals is becoming an increasing burden to the community. …

Predatory Publishers Threaten to Erode Scholarly Communication

Abstract: Predatory open-access (OA) publishers—the ones that exploit the gold (author pays)publishing model for their own profit— threaten the reputation of rigorously peer-reviewed OA journals. Many OA advocates singularly champion the open licensing of scholarly works but largely ignore the emerging serious quality issues. The result is an ever-increasing number of low-quality and even corrupt publishers, many of whom self-identify as noble for merely functioning as OA publishers—an identification that far too many OA advocates support.

Five Predatory Mega-Journals: A Review

Abstract: Mega-journals such as PLOS One are an emerging and successful model of scholarly Open Access publishing. Unfortunately, some new, questionable journals have appeared that are copying the megajournal model. This review covers the five predatory mega-journals British Journal of Science, International Journal of Current Research, International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology (IJSAT), International Journal of Sciences (IJSciences), and World Journal of Science and Technology. Each of these journals has a broad coverage that allows them to accept a greater number of articles than journals with a narrow scope. This broad coverage means that, with minimal effort and a single Web site, the journal owners are easily able to attract a substantial amount of author fees.