Medical publishing and the threat of predatory journals

Beall, Jeffrey

doi:10.25261/ir00000062

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, many people associate predatory journals with charging authors (article publishing charges (APCs)), and consider other predatory exercises to be publishers' efforts to entrap researchers into submitting their work for money. 5 Some studies even extend the defi nition of predatory publishing to cover the entire author-pays model of open access (OA) publishing. 6,7 The history of OA journals charging authors processing fees can be traced back to 2000 when the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central initiated the author-pays business model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals and their article publishing charges

Xia

2015

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals and their article publishing charges

Xia

2015

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Outcomes from these practices, such as lack of integrity of journal content upon which to base practice and diminished credibility or unauthorized duplication of work from original authors, are serious concerns for leaders in the profession of nursing. These unethical practices advance what Beall (2016c) has called "pseudo-, activists, and conspiracy theory science," diluting the credible literature (p. 116).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals

Owens

Nicoll

2019

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study compared three known predatory nursing journals to determine the percentage of content among them that was plagiarized or duplicated. A serendipitous finding of several instances of plagiarism via duplicate publications during the random analysis of articles in a study examining the quality of articles published in predatory journals prompted this investigation. Design The study utilized a descriptive, comparative design. All articles in each journal (n = 296 articles) from inception (volume 1, number 1) through May 1, 2017, were analyzed. Methods Each article was evaluated and scored electronically for similarity using an electronic plagiarism detection tool. Articles were then individually reviewed, and exact and near exact matches (90% or greater plagiarized content) were paired. Articles with less than 70% plagiarized scores were randomly sampled, and an in‐depth search for matches of partial content in other journals was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Findings The extent and direction of duplication from one given journal to another was established. Changes made in subsequent publications, as a potential distraction to identify plagiarism, were also identified. There were 100 (68%) exact and near exact matches in the paired articles. The time lapse between the original and duplicate publication ranged from 0 to 63 months, with a mean of 27.2 months (SD =19.68). Authors were from 26 countries, including Africa, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Articles with similarity scores in the range of 20% to 70% included possible similarities in content or research plagiarism, but not to the extent of the exact or near exact matches. The majority of the articles (n = 94) went from Journal A or C to Journal B, although four articles were first published in Journal B and then Journal A. Conclusions This study found a substantial level of plagiarism via duplicate publications in the three analyzed predatory journals, further diluting credible scientific literature and risking the ability to synthesize evidence accurately to inform practice. Editors should continue to use electronic plagiarism detection tools. Education about publishing misconduct for editors and authors is a high priority. Clinical Relevance Both contributors and consumers of nursing literature rely on integrity in publication. Authors expect appropriate credit for their scholarly contributions without unethical and unauthorized duplication of their work. Readers expect current information from original authors, upon which they can make informed practice decisions.

show abstract

“…Predatory journals frequently send emails, encouraging authors to submit an article, or invite them to do so 3 ) .…”

Section: Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predatory publishing refers to open access journals which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publication fees with little or no peer review and editorial services purely for their own profit 2 ) . Although this unethical phenomenon has attracted much attention, many researchers are still quite unaware of the problem and are unable to distinguish between a predatory and legitimate journal 3 ) , such as in the case presented here to COPE.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%