Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports

Kratochvíl, Jiří, Plch, Lukáš and Koriťáková, Eva Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Vnitřní lékařství, 2019, vol. 65, n. 5, pp. 338-347. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of clanek.pdf]
Preview
 Text
clanek.pdf - Published version
Download (280kB) | Preview

English abstract

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received 6 points or less and 110 (42.5%) journals 7 or more points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

Czech abstract

Studie zjišťovala dodržování kritérií transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování definovaných COPE, DOAJ, OASPAt a WAME v biomedicínských Open Access časopisech indexovaných v Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Z JCR bylo excerpováno 259 Open Access časopisů a na jejich webech ručně ověřeno plnění 14 kritérií transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování. Časopisy obdržely penalizační body za každé nedodržení kritéria definovaného COPE, DOAJ, OASPA a WAME. Průměrný počet přidělených penalizačních bodů byl 6, přičemž 149 (57,5 %) časopisů získalo 6 a méně bodů a 110 (42,5 %) časopisů získalo 7 a více bodů. Pouze 4 periodika splnila všechna kritéria a nezískala žádný penalizační bod. Nejvíce časopisů nedodrželo kritéria deklarace Creative Commons (164 časopisů), afiliace členů redakční rady (116), jednoznačnosti autorských poplatků (115), antiplagiátorské politiky (113) a počtu členů redakční rady z rozvojových zemí (99). Výzkum ukazuje, že JCR nelze používat jako whitelist časopisů dodržujících kritéria transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: biomedical journals, ethical rules of scientific publishing, Journal Citation Reports, open access, predatory journals, Web of Science, biomedicínské časopisy, etická pravidla vědeckého vydávání, Journal Citation Reports, open access (otevřený přístup k vědeckým informacím), predátorské časopisy, Web of Science
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues. > EZ. None of these, but in this section.
Depositing user: Jiří Kratochvíl
Date deposited: 10 Jun 2019 09:41
Last modified: 10 Jun 2019 09:41
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/38394

References

1. Baruch Y, Ghobadian A, Özbilgin M. Open Access - the Wrong Response to a Complex Question: The Case of the Finch Report: Open Access. Br J Manag. 2013;24(2):147–55.

2. European Commission. H2020 Programme: Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (version 3.2). [Brussels: European Commission]; 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf>.

3. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PloS One. 2010 Oct 18;5(10):e13636.

4. Harvey HB, Weinstein DF. Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2017;92(2):150–1.

5. Kahn M. Sharing your scholarship while avoiding the predators: guidelines for medical physicists interested in open access publishing. Med Phys. 2014;41(7):070401–1.

6. Nelson N, Huffman J. Predatory Journals in Library Databases: How Much Should We Worry? Ser Libr. 2015;69(2):169–92.

7. COPE. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors, version 4. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics; 2011 [cit. 2017-05-22]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf>.

8. DOAJ. Information for publishers. Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-05-22]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://doaj.org/publishers>.

9. OASPA. Membership Criteria. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. c2017 [cit. 2017-05-22]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>.

10. WAME. WAME Professionalism Code of Conduct. World Association of Medical Editors. 2016 [cit. 2017-12-10]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.wame.org/wame-professionalism-code-of-conduct>.

11. Wicherts JM. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS ONE. 2016 [cit. 2017-05-18];11(1). Dostupné z WWW: <http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913>.

12. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017 [cit. 2017-05-18];15(1). Dostupné z WWW: <http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9>.

13. Danevska L, Spiroski M, Donev D, et al. How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals. Pril Makedon Akad Na Nauk Umet Oddelenie Za Med Nauki. 2016;37(2–3):5–13.

14. Beall J. Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Inf Dev. 2015 Nov;31(5):473–6.

15. Bagues M, Sylos-Labini M, Zinovyeva N. A walk on the wild side: an investigation into the quantity and quality of `predatory’ publications in Italian academia. Pisa: Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna; 2017 [cit. 2017-05-23]. (LEM Working Paper Series). Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2017-01.pdf>.

16. Harzing A-W, Adler NJ. Disseminating knowledge: from potential to reality- new open-access journals collide with convention. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2016;15(1):140–56.

17. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30(12):1915–9.

18. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, et al. Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Aug;30(8):1010–6.

19. Ayeni PO, Adetoro N. Growth of predatory open access journals: implication for quality assurance in library and information science research. Libr Hi Tech News. 2017 Mar 6;34(1):17–22.

20. Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín J-M, Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. El Prof Inf. 2016;25(5):730–7.

21. Macháček V, Srholec M. Predatory journals in Scopus. Praha: IDEA CERGE-EI; 2017 [cit. 2017-05-23]. 40 p. Dostupné z WWW: <http://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdf>.

22. Crawford W. Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites Insights. 2014;14(4):1–14.

23. Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature. 2015;526(7575):613.

24. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s List Better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015;76(3):132–5.

25. Beall J. Don’t Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist. Scholarly Open Access. 2016 [cit. 2017-05-23]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://web.archive.org/web/20170114052258/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/20/dont-use-pubmed-as-a-journal-whitelist/>.

26. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 Feb;98(2):77–9.

27. COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, et al. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics; 2018 [cit. 2018-03-02]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf>.

28. Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG, et al. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS One. 2015;10(8):1–20.

29. Sharman A. Where to publish. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(5):329–32.

30. OECD. DAC List of ODA Recipients. Paris: OECD; 2016 [cit. 2017-06-07]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm>.

31. CIEPS. Download ROAD records. ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources. 2017 [cit. 2017-06- 16]. Dostupné z WWW: <road.issn.org/en/contenu/download-road-records>.

32. DOAJ. Frequently Asked Question: How can I get journal metadata from DOAJ? . DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-06- 16]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://doaj.org/faq>.

33. OASPA. Members. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. c2017 [cit. 2017-12-13]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://oaspa.org/membership/members/>.

34. WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. World Association of Medical Editors. 2015 [cit. 2017-12-10]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice>.

35. Mehrpour S, Khajavi Y. How to spot fake open access journals. Learn Publ. 2014;27(4):269–74.

36. DOAJ. Information for Publishers. DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://doaj.org/publishers>.

37. Björk B-C, Solomon D. Pricing principles used by scholarly open access publishers. Learn Publ. 2012;25(2):132–7.

38. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 3rd ed. [Denver: University of Colorado]; 2015 [cit. 2018-04- 14]. Dostupné z WWW: <https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf>.

39. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals. WAME. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-10]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.wame.org/about/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals>.

40. Carafoli E. Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei-Sci Fis E Nat. 2015;26(3):369–82.

41. Index Copernicus International. Centrum Badawczo Rozwojowe EN. Index Copernicus. 2017 [cit. 2018-01-23]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/168-uncategorised-3/509-centrum-badawczo-rozwojowe-en>.

42. European Commission. Projects. European Commission: Regional Policy: InfoRegio. 2017 [cit 2017-06- 16]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects>.

43. Index Copernicus. ICI Journals Master List. Index Copernicus International. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/parametryzacja-menu-2/journals-master-list-2>.

44. Clarivate Analytics. Journal Search: Master Journal List. Clarivate Analytics. c2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=master>.

45. Index Copernicus. Evaluation methodology. Index Copernicus International. 2017 [cit. 2017-06- 16]. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/parametrisation-1/journals-master-list-2/the-methodology-en>.

46. Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A, et al. Improvement of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: a data analysis. Ital J Libr Inf Sci. 2017;8(1):1–21.

47. Appendixes available on WWW: <https://is.muni.cz/repo/1527916/>.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS