Key points
The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1135

Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’

Introduction to Cataloging and Classification

https://jkms.org Since the 1990s, scholarly publishing has been transformed from subscription print-based paradigm to an open access and digital publishing model, but this transformation has been accompanied by unethical and predatory publishing practices.1,2 ‘Pay-to-publish’ predatory journals abuse the open-access publishing model, and their main intention is to make money out of authors for their editor–owners.3,4 The defining characteristic of predatory journals is the lack of a proper peer review process, despite their claims to the contrary.4 The spectrum of victims of predatory journals varies widely and includes inexperienced, early-career and naive researchers from both developing and highto upper middle-income countries, together with experienced researchers.3-5 To circumvent this, several black and whitelists have been created. Beall's list of potential or probable predatory journals remained the go-to list until its sudden closure.6 Later, similar lists such as the Stop Predatory Journals website (https:// predatoryjournals.com), and institutional lists such as those published by the University Grants Commission (UGC) India, and several other commercial bodies and associations appeared; however, they have been criticized for several reasons, including their poor methodology and lack of transparency.7-9 The world of scholarly publishing is not purely black and white, and there are always some grey areas; therefore, we cannot rely on any such listings.

/pdf/revisiting-the-term-predatory-open-access-publishing-211has0vck.pdf

Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing.

This 3-year project is funded by JISC, OCLC, Oxford University, and the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. It does not aim to answer ‘What works?’ but ‘Why does it work?’. If we gain a better understanding of student and scholar motivations for engaging in the information environment, we have a greater chance of meeting expectations and creating services which are used and ultimately good value for money. We cannot continue to provide an educational version of every available platform in an attempt to mirror the web within institutions. We must make informed decisions on how to move forward to ensure that we will not be at the mercy of every ‘new’ technology that becomes available nor will we be expending funds on services, systems, and facilities that are not used.



The project is an attempt to fill the gap in user behaviour studies identified in the JISC Digital Information Seeker Report (2010). Connaway and Dickey (2010) call for a longitudinal study “to identify how individuals engage in both the virtual and physical worlds to get information for different situations could be conducted” (p. 56). They believe that “Such an investigation would contribute to a better understanding of how individuals navigate in multiple information environments and could influence the design and integration of systems and services for devices and applications, as well as cloud computing” (Connaway and Dickey (2010, p. 56). It utilises the visitors and residents principle described in the TALL blog (White 2008), which hypothesizes that neither age nor gender determines whether one is a visitor (one who logs on to the virtual environment, performs a specific task or acquires specific information, and then logs off) or a resident (one who has an ongoing, developing presence online).

Visitors and residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment?

How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Linked data have the potential to expose descriptive metadata about serials and serials relationships on the open Web and allow creative connections between library information about serials and the seemingly infinite elements of Web data. Linked data may also hold the potential to solve some classic serials dilemmas including latest versus successive entry and single versus multiple records for print and online. How do these possibilities mesh with the evolving current state of linked data projects in the commercial and library sector as well as with the Library of Congress’ Bibliographic Framework Initiative (BIBFRAME)? The three sections of this article will present different viewpoints about linked data and serials. An “early experimenter” and member of the group modeling BIBFRAME serials will discuss her experiences and thoughts on future directions. The head of the United States International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) Center will take an ISSN perspective, looking at ISSN’s potential in the linke...

The Missing Link: The Evolving Current State of Linked Data for Serials

The rise of predatory journals and the dubious methods they use to attract researchers to publish in them and serve on their editorial boards is disrupting the scholarly publishing landscape. It is...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894

Predatory Journal Challenges and Responses

Two forces acting on the bibliographic control of serials are described: the desire to harmonize international standards and practices, and the impact of electronic serials. By breaking out of traditional publishing patterns, electronic serials have called into question current cataloging rules definitions (including the very definition of “serial”), and practices. Three key standards that affect bibliographic control of serials are currently undergoing revision: AACR2, ISBD(S), and ISSN rules. Areas where harmonization of these rules and standards would be of most benefit to the cataloging and information communities are discussed.

Harmonizing Bibliographic Control of Serials in the Digital Age

Exploitation of the open access (OA) model by unscrupulous publishers can seem a threat to the future of scholarly publishing. Some see the proliferation of these publishers as a simple case of bad actors who need to be stopped. Further reflection and reading can lead to a realization that the situation is not nearly as simple as bad guys vs. good guys. Rather, what is happening can be seen as a natural outgrowth of the ease of publishing on the internet and the rise of OA publishing. A global economic market for publishing scholarly articles on the internet has emerged and is responsible in part for this phenomenon. There is a continuum of publishers that some term ‘predatory’ which ranges from clueless new publishers to outright frauds. The good news is that the emergence of this phenomenon has resulted in the development of professional associations, educational movements and best practices that can help educate authors, publishers, researchers and academia alike. In the end the situation might turn out to be one of ‘temporary inconvenience, permanent improvement’.  Based on a breakout session presented at the 39th UKSG Annual Conference, Bournemouth, April 2016

/pdf/the-predatory-publishing-phenomenon-dead-end-or-just-an-1z7r6mdmdm.pdf

The predatory publishing phenomenon: dead end or just an inconvenience on the road to a new scholarly publishing landscape?

The publication and the official endorsement of the IFLA Library Reference Model, in August 2017, represents a significant achievement for the library community as a whole. This overarching model covers all types of bibliographic resources, and represents an important opportunity for harmonization among the different cataloguing standards. This paper intends to demonstrate the harmonization potential for a particular kind of publication: continuing resources. These resources present indeed significant characteristics in terms of modelling and bibliographic description, which are specifically addressed by the IFLA LRM. The implications of IFLA LRM statements about serials and other continuing resources needed therefore to be thoroughly assessed. More precisely, the paper will present the activity and outcomes, so far, of the “Serials Task Force”, an ad-hoc expert group depending on the Aggregates Working Group of the RDA Steering Committee. This task force is charged with redefining the modelling and providing broad recommendations for revising the instructions in RDA that relate to continuing resources, to align them with the IFLA LRM. It also seeks to maintain consistency with other cataloguing standards related to continuing resources, particularly the ISSN Manual.

Regina Romano Reynolds

Papers

The Missing Link: The Evolving Current State of Linked Data for Serials

Predatory Journal Challenges and Responses

Harmonizing Bibliographic Control of Serials in the Digital Age

The predatory publishing phenomenon: dead end or just an inconvenience on the road to a new scholarly publishing landscape?

A model to link them all: IFLA LRM as a driver for harmonization of cataloguing standards related to serials and other continuing resources