Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

The Rise of Predatory Publishing: How To Avoid Being Scammed

  • Sarah M. Ward (a1)
Abstract

The rise of on-line open access (OA) has profound implications for academic publishing, not least the shift from subscribers to authors as the primary transactional partners for peer-reviewed journals. Although OA offers many benefits, it also paves the way for predatory publishers, who exploit the author-as-customer model to obtain revenue from author fees while providing few of the editorial services associated with academic publishing. Predatory journals publish papers with little or no peer review, and often disguise their real geographical location while exaggerating their scope and editorial expertise. Such journals also attempt to attract authors by promising unrealistically rapid editorial decisions while falsely claiming peer review, and fabricating impact factors and inclusion in academic indexes. The explosive increase in predatory OA journals is not only a risk to inexperienced authors, but also threatens to undermine the OA model and the legitimate communication of research.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Author's E-mail: sarah.ward@colostate.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

Associate editor for this paper: William Vencill, University of Georgia.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adler, P (2015) National Science Foundation releases plan for public access to NSF-funded research. Association of Research Libraries. http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/3553-national-science-foundation-releases-plan-for-public-access-to-nsf-funded-research/. Accessed May 11, 2016
Anderson, R (2014) Housecleaning at the Directory of Open Access Journals. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/08/14/housecleaning-at-the-directory-of-open-access-journals/. Accessed May 4, 2016
Anonymous (2016) The Thompson Reuters impact factor. Thompson Reuters Web of Science. http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/. Accessed April 27, 2016
Beall, J (2012) Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489:179
Beall, J (2013) Look out for bogus impact factor companies. https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/06/bogus-impact-factor-companies/. Accessed May 9, 2016
Beall, J (2015) New fake metric company sells nine bogus metrics to publishers. https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/09/17/new-fake-metric-company-sells-nine-bogus-metrics-to-publishers/#more-5957. Accessed May 9, 2016
Beall, J (2016b) https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/. Accessed May 3, 2016
Björk, BC (2011) A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. J Med Internet Res 13:e115. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1802
Bohannon, J (2013) Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342:6065
Bohannon, J (2015) How to hijack a journal. Science. DOI: 10. 1126/science.aad7463
Butler, D (2013) Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing Nature 495:433435
Casassus, B (2014) Paper claiming GM link with tumors republished. Nature. DOI:10.1038/nature.2014.15463
Dadkhah, M (2015) New types of fraud in the academic world by cyber criminals. J Adv Nurs. DOI: 10.1111/jan.12856
Gutierrez, FRS, Beall, J, Forero, DA (2015) Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective Bioessays 37:474476
Howard, J (2012) A push grows abroad for open access to publicly financed research. Chronicle Higher Educ. http://chronicle.com/article/Push-for-Open-Access-Goes/133561. Accessed May 11, 2016
Kendzior, S (2013) Should academics write for free? Chronicle Higher Educ. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/90-should-academics-write-for-free. Accessed May 10, 2016
Kolata, G (2013) Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?. Accessed May 4, 2016
Mesnage, R, Moesch, C, Le Grand, R, Lauthier, G, de Vendômois, JS, Gress, S, Séralini, GE (2012) Glyphosate exposure in a farmer's family J Environ Prot 3:10011003
McCook, A (2015) Predatory journals published more than 400,000 papers in 2014. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/30/most-predatory-publishing-occurs-in-asia-africa-report/. Accessed May 4, 2016
Miller, HI, Wager, R (2016) Dirty secrets of fraudulent “advocacy research.” Nat Rev. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431946/genetically-engineered-food-advocacy-research-fraudulent-science/. Accessed May 8, 2016
Public Knowledge Project (2014) Open Journal Systems. https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/. Accessed April 29, 2016.
Safi, M (2014) Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list. Accessed April 15, 2016
Séralini G-E (2016) The experience of one of the first GM crop farmers in Europe Scholarly J Agric Sci 6:910
Shen, C, Björk, BC (2015) “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 13:230. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
Spier, R (2002) The history of the peer review process Trends Biotechnol 20:357358
Stone, TE, Rossiter, RC (2015) Predatory publishing: take care that you are not caught in the Open Access net Nurs Health Sci 17:277279
Testa, J (2016) The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-selection-process/. Accessed May 9, 2016
United Kingdom Copyright Service (2015) Fact Sheet P-01: U.K. Copyright Law. https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law. Accessed June 12, 2016
U.S. Copyright Office (2015) Circular 34: Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2016
Van Noorden, R (2014) Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2014.14763
Yong-Hak, J (2013) Web of Science. http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/WoSFS_08_7050.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2016
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Science
  • ISSN: 0043-1745
  • EISSN: 1550-2759
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed