scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Jeffrey Beall published in 2016"



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The characteristics of predatory publishers, including spamming and using fake metrics, are described, and the problems they cause for science and universities are described.
Abstract: This article introduces predatory publishers in the context of biomedical sciences research. It describes the characteristics of predatory publishers, including spamming and using fake metrics, and it describes the problems they cause for science and universities. Predatory journals often fail to properly manage peer review, allowing pseudo-science to be published dressed up as authentic science. Academic evaluation is also affected, as some researchers take advantage of the quick, easy, and cheap publishing predatory journals provide. By understanding how predatory publishers operate, researchers can avoid becoming victimized by them.

93 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Several legitimate publishers, library groups and others have joined forces to educate and inform authors in what to look for when selecting journals to publish in (or read) and hopes to raise awareness of disreputable journals while clearly separating them from valid, high quality, open access journals.
Abstract: 'Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to understanding our potential.' Margaret J Wheatley. The focus of any academic or research author is to share his or her findings, and to gain respect and reward for publishing. The ideal journal is one that not only publishes an article quickly but also helps the author to improve the article before publication through peer review, selects only the best research so that the author's article lies alongside other high quality articles, and provides maximum (and long-term) visibility and access to the article. Unfortunately, in the real world, authors need to make tradeoffs between high quality journals, those that work quickly, those that are willing to accept the article and those that provide the best access. Into this mix has come the potential of open access as a means of increasing visibility: journals publish the article without a subscription barrier so anyone, anywhere, can read the article. However, the growth of open access (pushed by institutions, grant bodies and governments as a means of improving human health and knowledge) has come with some unforeseen consequences. In this article, Jeffrey Beall discusses one recent phenomenon that has arisen from the open access movement: that of 'predatory publishers'. These are individuals or companies that use the open access financial system (author pays, rather than library subscribes) to defraud authors and readers by promising reputable publishing platforms but delivering nothing of the sort. They frequently have imaginary editorial boards, do not operate any peer review or quality control, are unclear about payment requirements and opaque about ownership or location, include plagiarised content and publish whatever somebody will pay them to publish. Predatory publishers generally make false promises to authors and behave unethically. They also undermine the scholarly information and publishing environment with a deluge of poor quality, unchecked and invalidated articles often published on temporary sites, thus losing the scholarly record. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian in Denver, US, has watched the rise of such fraudulent practice, and manages a blog site that names publishers and journals that he has identified as predatory. While Beall's lists can provide librarians and knowledgeable authors with information on which journals and publishers to be cautious about, several legitimate publishers, library groups and others have joined forces to educate and inform authors in what to look for when selecting journals to publish in (or read). This initiative, called Think. Check. Submit. (http://thinkchecksubmit.org/), was launched in the latter half of 2015 and hopes to raise awareness of disreputable journals while clearly separating them from valid, high quality, open access journals (of which there are many). PIPPA SMART Guest Editor.

89 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce, define, and describe predatory publishers and journals and show how they hurt science and victimize individual researchers by accepting papers with little or no peer review.
Abstract: This article introduces, defines, and describes predatory publishers and journals and shows how they hurt science and victimize individual researchers. Academic evaluation that only counts the number of publications may not provide an accurate measure of scholarly achievement, as journals routinely accept papers with little or no peer review.

59 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper presents the history, evolution, and tactics of predatory journals, as well as recommendations for dealing with this threat to science itself.
Abstract: In recent years, the scientific publishing world has seen the creation and rapid growth of online journals, which do not respect the long-standing gentleman's agreement that has functioned as the primary quality-control mechanism for science: bona fide peer review and editorial oversight. Such predatory journals take advantage of the low cost and ease of online “publishing,” the open access movement, and use feigned associations with international standards and misleading claims of impact factors, aimed at deceiving researchers (especially inexperienced scientists) into believing they are legitimate. We present the history, evolution, and tactics of such journals, as well as recommendations for dealing with this threat to science itself.

34 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article will describe predatory publishers, identify how they operate and hurt researchers and science, and show dermatology researchers how best to avoid them.

23 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A 2012 opinion piece of mine in Nature bore the headline, “Predatory Publishers are Corrupting Open Access,” which remains true, except that the problem is much larger.
Abstract: A 2012 opinion piece of mine in Nature bore the headline, “Predatory Publishers Are Corrupting Open Access.”[1][1] Now, almost four years later, the headline’s meaning remains true, except that the problem is much larger. The number of questionable and low-quality open-access journals and

17 citations