Now a days I am getting large number of emails inviting aggressively for submission of articles in new journals and also asking to become a member of editorial boards. Are they "Predatory Journals" and Gold open access-journals? They accept these articles quickly with no peer review, charging heavily publishing fee, fake impact factor, false publishing location etc. Are they corrupting open accesses publishing? Let us open an awareness for upcoming researchers.
Hi All,
Is there any thing wrong I have asked in this question. Please informe.
Regards
Please refer to this link :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_detect_if_a_Journal_is_predator_or_not?_tpcectx=profile_questions
One can judge for his own experience with the journals. Each author is other history.
Please refer to the following link to get more details:
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/
A strong attachment of monetary gain to scientific publishing corrupts the quest or thirst for knowledge.
Half of journals accept pseudo-study
Before scientists publish a study, their quality is checked by colleagues. How badly this peer review process often works is shown by a US biologist's self-experiment: more than half accepted a study that he sent to 300 journals with intentional errors.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 04.10.2013
Obviously, the number of journals that work dubiously is larger than previously thought. Open access journals have exacerbated the problem.
A creative Gonzo journalist
John Bohannon is a creative mind: In 2008 he had the idea that bioscientists could not only write their doctoral thesis, but also dance - she was realized at an event of researching "Dancing Stars" at the Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP) in Vienna.
However, Bohannon is a biologist and "gonzo journalist" for the science magazine "Science". As such, he likes to get himself involved in his own stories: In the current case, he has tested the trustworthiness of OA journals.
Unlike traditional journals financed by subscription fees, OA studies are freely accessible. The money needed for this must be raised by the scientists themselves, their sponsors or institutions.
304 Open Access journals written in writing
The OA model leads to more democracy in publishing, but apparently also to an increase in the number of black sheep in the industry. Bohannon wanted to know exactly how many of them there are, and therefore sent 304 OA magazines a study of their own. The study showed that a certain molecule restricts the growth of cancer cells and at the same time increases their susceptibility to radiation therapy.
The work was fraught with errors, Bohannon assures, from the technique to the conclusions that recommend the direct use of the method in humans without clinical trials.
In order to create "unique studies", the biologist randomly changed some of the basic designations and then sent them to the OA journals under various pseudonyms of African origin.
Only 36 errors occurred
157 of them accepted the work, 98 rejected it, the remaining journals no longer existed or had not yet reached a decision. In other words, more than half of the study would have shown up, even though it was allegedly reviewed by critical peer reviewers.
In fact, 149 of the journals showed "no signs of peer review,"as Bohannon writes. However, it seems that the process itself cannot be relied on either, since 70 percent of the journals that reviewed the study accepted it in the end. Only 36 of them noticed the obvious scientific errors. Particularly sobering: The editors wanted to publish the study nevertheless with 16 of these.
The results are therefore not very hopeful. The question is, however, why the "science" - traditionally subject to a fee - has carried out a test that deals exclusively with OA journals. The suspicion is obvious that the results would have been similar for many subscription magazines.
Old and new publishers affected
"The problem could be a general overload in the peer review process,"comments Falk Reckling, Open Access expert of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), to science. ORF. at. "In recent years, the number of journals and publications has exploded. Scientists are often simply overtaxed, and that is not due to Open Access. But even more obvious is the simple fact that bad or dubious journals will certainly not attract the best reviewers." "
The background to this development is economic interests. In addition to publishing houses from traditional scientific countries, many have recently emerged in emerging and developing countries that want to earn money in the booming market. Like elsewhere, there are serious and less serious ones. The problem is the sheer mass of magazines. Even renowned scientists often find it difficult to keep track of their own fields of expertise.
The journals have a particularly objective and Western sounding name, such as the "American Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences" or the "European Journal of Chemistry", but are often based in Asia or Africa. According to Bohannon, the dubious publishing houses are based in India, followed by the United States, Great Britain and Nigeria.
His fake study, however, not only accepted opaque journals from the Third World: they also wanted to publish journals by industry giants such as Elsevier, Sage and Wolters Kluwer.
Found in:
http://sciencev2.orf.at/stories/1725951/index.html
While the original Beall's list web site (scholarly-oa.com) does not host the list anymore anyway, I have recently found a web site
https://predatoryjournals.com/
which claims to build on and expand this list (see https://predatoryjournals.com/about/ ).
See also the related question
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_new_site_listing_predatory_journals_What_do_you_think_of_it
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing