Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Kratochvíl, Jiří, Plch, Lukáš, Sebera, Martin and Koriťáková, Eva Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view. Learned Publishing, 2020, vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 308-322. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of 2019-Kratochvil-untrust-edited.pdf]
Preview
 Text
2019-Kratochvil-untrust-edited.pdf - Accepted version
Download (419kB) | Preview

English abstract

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: untrustworthy journals; predatory journals; evaluation criteria
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AA. Library and information science as a field.
E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
Depositing user: Jiří Kratochvíl
Date deposited: 16 Aug 2020 08:04
Last modified: 16 Aug 2020 08:04
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/40296

References

American Medical Association. (c2019). For authors. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/for-authors#fa-why-publish

Anderson, R. (2017, July 25). Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: A review. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/

Andrew, C., Traynor, V., & Iverson, D. (2015). An integrative review: Understanding driving retirement decisions for individuals living with a dementia. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(12), 2728–2740. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12727

Ayeni, P. O., & Adetoro, N. (2017). Growth of predatory open access journals: Implication for quality assurance in library and information science research. Library Hi Tech News, 34(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2016-0046

Bagues, M. F., Sylos Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017). A walk on the wild side: An investigation into the quantity and quality of ‘predatory’ publications in Italian academia. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2017-01.pdf

Bagues, M. F., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy, 48(2), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013

Baruch, Y., Ghobadian, A., & Özbilgin, M. (2013). Open Access – the wrong response to a complex question: The case of the Finch report: Open Access. British Journal of Management, 24(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12016

Beall, J. (2010). ‘Predatory’ Open-Access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/charleston/chadv/2010/00000011/00000004/art00005#

Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory Open-Access Publishers (3rd ed.). Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf

Beall, J. (2016). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(10), 1511–1513. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511

Beall, J. (2017, January 11). Misleading metrics. Retrieved 18 October 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20170111172311/https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/

Berger, M. (2017). Everything you ever wanted to know about predatory publishing but were afraid to ask. ACRL 2017. Presented at the ARCL 2017, Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-25, 2017, Baltimore. Retrieved 18 October 2019, from https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ny_pubs/141

Bisaccio, M. (2018). Cabells’ journal whitelist and blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1164

Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f

Bowman, M. A., Saultz, J. W., & Phillips, W. R. (2018). Beware of predatory journals: A caution from editors of three Family Medicine Journals. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 31(5), 671–676. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.180197

CASP. (c2018). CASP checklists. Retrieved 12 November 2019, from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Centro ASK. (2011). PEER Economics Report. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_Economics_Report.pdf

Clarivate Analytics. (2018). Title suppressions. Retrieved 4 November 2019, from http://help.incites.clarivate.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/titleSuppressions.html

Clements, J. C., Daigle, R. M., & Froehlich, H. E. (2018). Predator in the pool? A quantitative evaluation of non-indexed Open Access journals in aquaculture research. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5(March), 106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00106

CLSJEP. ([c2019]). Aims and scope. Retrieved 17 October 2019, from http://www.cspatologie.cz/en-profil.php

Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2

COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, & WAME. (2018). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf

Cortegiani, A., Sanfilippo, F., Tramarin, J., & Giarratano, A. (2019). Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine. Journal of Critical Care, 50, 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.12.016

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 16(11), 658–663. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681

Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4). https://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf

Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing It!. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.15171/apb.2016.001

Darbyshire, P., McKenna, L., Lee, S. F., & East, C. E. (2017). Taking a stand against predatory publishers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(7), 1535–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13004

de Vrieze, J. (2018, September 4). Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers. Retrieved 22 October 2019, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers

Drayton, N. (2019, April 3). Court rules in FTC’s favor against predatory academic publisher OMICS Group; Imposes $50.1 million judgment against defendants that made false claims and hid publishing fees. Retrieved 15 October 2019, from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/04/court-rules-ftcs-favor-against-predatory-academic-publisher-omics

Edie, A. H., & Conklin, J. L. (2019). Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true. Nursing Forum, 54(3), 336–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12333

Elsevier. (c2019). People at The Lancet. Retrieved 22 October 2019, from https://www.thelancet.com/lancet-people

Elsevier. (2017). Scopus: Content coverage guide. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf

Elsevier. (2019). Stay abreast of the research happening in your area. Retrieved 4 November 2019, from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content

Emerald Publishing. (c2019). The Electronic Library editorial team. Retrieved 18 March 2019, from http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/editorial_team.htm?id=el

Erfanmanesh, M., & Pourhossein, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory Open Access journals: A case of Iran. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9547-y

Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1135

European Commission. (2017). H2020 programme: Guidelines to the rules on Open Access to scientific publications and Open Access to research data in Horizon 2020 (version 3.2). Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

Eve, M. P., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867

Eysenbach, G. (2008, March 8). Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

Frandsen, T. F. (2019a). How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 221–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1230

Frandsen, T. F. (2019b). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature: Why authors publish in questionable journals. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214

Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2010). Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0013636

Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Diyanova, S. N., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(8), 1010–1016. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010

Global Society for Scientific Research. (c2014). Welcome to JIFACTOR. Retrieved 12 May 2019, from http://jifactor.org/

Gonzalez, J., Bridgeman, M. B., & Hermes-DeSantis, E. R. (2018). Differentiating predatory scholarship: Best practices in scholarly publication. The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 26(1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12380

Hansoti, B., Langdorf, M. I., & Murphy, L. S. (2016). Discriminating between legitimate and predatory Open Access journals: Report from the International federation for emergency medicine research committee. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17(5), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328

Harnad, S. (2008, July 15). The Dot-gold rush for Open Access. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/432-The-Dot-Gold-Rush-for-Open-Access.html

Harzing, A.-W., & Adler, N. J. (2016). Disseminating knowledge: From potential to reality—New Open-Access journals collide with convention. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0373

Hill, T. (2015). Identifying legitimate open access journals: Some suggestions from a publisher. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150109

Hindawi. ([c2019]). Abstracting and indexing. Retrieved 12 November 2019, from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/pd/ai/

Huffman, J. (2017). Publisher package and Open Access journals: Are any of them predatory? The Serials Librarian, 73(3–4), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2017.1389796

Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5

Institute for Information Resources. (2017, c2010). Evaluation method. Retrieved 12 May 2019, from http://globalimpactfactor.com/evaluatiion-method/

Jeng, W., DesAutels, S., He, D., & Li, L. (2017). Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on researchgate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 638–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23692

Joanna Briggs Institute. ([c2019]). Critical appraisal tools. Retrieved 12 November 2019, from https://joannabriggs.org/critical_appraisal_tools

John Wiley & Sons. (c2019). CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians: Editorial board. Retrieved 22 October 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15424863/homepage/editorialboard.html

Kahn, M. (2014). Sharing your scholarship while avoiding the predators: Guidelines for medical physicists interested in open access publishing. Medical Physics, 41(7), 070401. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4883836

Kanungo, D. P., Sharma, S., & Pain, A. (2014). Artificial neural network (ANN) and Regression tree (CART) applications for the indirect estimation of unsaturated soil shear strength parameters. Frontiers of Earth Science, 8(3), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-014-0416-0

Kratochvíl, J., Plch, L., & Koriťáková, E. (2019). Compliance with transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Vnitřní Lékařství, 65(5), 338–347. http://is.muni.cz/repo/1527916/clanek.pdf

Kumar, P., & Saxena, D. (2016). Pandemic of publications and predatory journals: Another nail in the coffin of academics. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 41(3), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.183586

Li, L., He, D., & Zhang, C. (2016). Evaluating academic answer quality: A pilot study on ResearchGate Q&A. In F. F.-H. Nah & C.-H. Tan (Eds.), HCI in Business, Government, and Organizations: ECommerce and Innovation (pp. 61–71). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39396-4_6

Lucia, D. (2017, June 26). Science’s fake journal epidemic. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/06/26/sciences-fake-journal-epidemic/

Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://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

Massachusetts Medical Society. (c2019). Editors and publishers. Retrieved 22 October 2019, from https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editors-and-publishers

Masten, Y. B., & Ashcraft, A. S. (2016). The dark side of dissemination: Traditional and Open Access versus predatory journals. Nursing Education Perspectives, 37(5), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000064

McCann, T. V., & Polacsek, M. (2018). False gold: Safely navigating open access publishing to avoid predatory publishers and journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(4), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13483

McGlinchey, N. (2017, March 23). When should reviewers receive reminders? Retrieved 4 April 2019, from https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer/when-should-reviewers-receive-reminders

MDPI. (2018, September 7). MDPI’s comment on Science article. MDPI. Retrieved 8 February 2020, from https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1389

MDPI. (2019, May 8). Update: Response to Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s repeated attacks on MDPI. Retrieved 22 October 2019, from https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Nadelson, S., & Nadelson, L. S. (2014). Evidence-Based Practice Article Reviews Using CASP Tools: A Method for Teaching EBP. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(5), 344–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12059

Newland, J. (2016). Predatory publishing. The Nurse Practitioner, 41(8), 13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000489539.57309.0c

Neylon, C. (2017, January 29). Blacklists are technically infeasible, practically unreliable and unethical. Period. Retrieved 30 March 2019, from http://cameronneylon.net/blog/blacklists-are-technically-infeasible-practically-unreliable-and-unethical-period/

Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F. G., Wilson, A. D. M., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., … Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS One, 10(8), e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557

Nobes, A. (2017, March 29). Critical thinking in a post-Beall vacuum. Retrieved 20 March 2019, from https://www.researchinformation.info/feature/critical-thinking-post-beall-vacuum

Nolfi, D. A., Lockhart, J. S., & Myers, C. R. (2015). Predatory publishing: What you don’t know can hurt you. Nurse Educator, 40(5), 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000179

Olivarez, J. D., Bales, S., Sare, L., & van Duinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: Applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52

OMICS International. (c2019). Article processing charges. Retrieved 30 March 2019, from https://www.omicsonline.org/article-processing-charges.php

Plch, L., & Kratochvíl, J. (2018). Analýza predátorských znaků publikací jako služba Knihovny univerzitního kampusu. ProInflow, 10(2), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.5817/ProIn2018-2-6

PLOS. (2019). Publication fees. Retrieved 30 March 2019, from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees

Power, H. (2018). Predatory publishing: How to safely navigate the waters of Open Access. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 50(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562117748287

Rele, S., Kennedy, M., & Blas, N. (2017). Journal evaluation tool. LMU Librarian Publications & Presentations, (40). Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/40

Rich, T. S. (2016). Predatory publishing, Open Access, and the costs to academia. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(2), 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516000172

Ross-White, A., Godfrey, C. M., Sears, K. A., & Wilson, R. (2019). Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(1), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.491

Rupp, M., Anastasopoulou, L., Wintermeyer, E., Malhaan, D., El Khassawna, T., & Heiss, C. (2019). Predatory journals: A major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics, 43(3), 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 16(12), 738–744. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726

Samuel, A. J., & Aranha, V. P. (2018). Valuable research in fake journals and self-boasting with fake metrics. Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences, 13(4), 517–518. https://doi.org/10.4103/JPN.JPN_66_18

Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7, 969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1

Shahriari, N., Grant-Kels, J. M., & Payette, M. J. (2016). Predatory journals: How to recognize and avoid the threat of involvement with these unethical ‘publishers’. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 75(3), 658–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.04.056

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., … Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Sharman, A. (2015). Where to publish. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 97(5), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.0003

Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. El Profesional de La Información, 25(5), 730. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03

Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/543481a

Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. MBio, 10(3), e00411–e00419. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Predatory publishing: A quantitative assessment, the predatory score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(1), 21–34. http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)21-34o.pdf

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do journal whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017

Think. Check. Submit. (c2019). Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

Tosti, A., & Maddy, A. J. (2017). Ranking predatory journals in dermatology: Distinguishing the bad from the ugly. International Journal of Dermatology, 56(7), 718–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.13644

Toutloff, L. (2019, March 20). Cabells Blacklist Criteria v 1.1. Retrieved 12 June 2019, from https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/20/blacklist-criteria-v1-1/

Transparent peer review and open data at Communications Biology. (2019). Communications Biology, 2, 239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0489-0

Umlauf, M. G., & Mochizuki, Y. (2018). Predatory publishing and cybercrime targeting academics. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 24 Suppl 1, e12656. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12656

University of Pitesti. (2018, September 25). Instructions for authors. Retrieved 12 November 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180925104637/http://efsupit.ro/index.php/instructions-to-authors

Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - Results from an international study. Information Services and Use, 28(2), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0568

Web of Science Group. (c2019). Web of Science journal evaluation process and selection criteria. Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/journal-evaluation-process-and-selection-criteria/

Web of Science Group. (2019). Journal Citation Reports: Suppression policy. Retrieved 24 March 2019, from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/journal-self-citation-jcr/

Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in Open Access and subscription journals. PloS One, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913

Yan, J. R., Baldawi, H., Lex, J. R., Simchovich, G., Baisi, L.-P., Bozzo, A., & Ghert, M. (2018). Predatory publishing in orthopaedic research. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 100(21), e138(1-48). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01569

Yeates, S. (2017). After Beall’s ‘List of predatory publishers’: Problems with the list and paths forward. Information Research, 22(4), paper rails1611. http://www.informationr.net/ir/22-4/rails/rails1611.html


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