Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The study aims to investigate whether indices (e.g. SSCI/ SCI/AHCI/ESCI, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, HW Wilson, ERIC) include potentially fake journals (PFJs) identified earlier in Beall’s list. Fourteen indices were examined to find out if PFJs are indexed by indices. The study also aims to provide detailed data regarding which of these indices include such PFJs along with information about the number of issues and articles published per year and publication fees charged by PFJs indexed by ordinary indices. The universe of the PFJs is composed of those listed in the Beall list (n=2708), and the study aimed to reach all the universe instead of being content with a sample from it. The results of the study indicated that one PFJ was indexed by SCI and two were indexed by ESCI. In addition, it was found that 53 PFJs were indexed by SCOPUS, 12 by ERIC and six by MEDLİNE. It was revealed that PFJs indexed by indices have significantly higher numbers of articles published annually and charge significantly higher fees compared to PFJs that are not indexed in such indices.

Keywords

Beall’s list indices potentially fake journals predatory journals publication fee scholarly databases

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abraham

Minj

(2007) Scientific journal publishing in India: Promoting electronic publishing of scholarly journals in India. First Monday 12(10). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/%20fm/article/view/1954 (accessed 2 April 2018).

Adomi

Mordi

(2003) Publication in foreign journals and promotion of academics in Nigeria. Learned Publishing 16(4): 259–263.

Anderson

(2012) Predatory open access publishers: The natural extreme of an author pays model. The Scholarly Kitchen, March 2. Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/06/predatoryopen-access-publishers-the-natural-extreme-of-an-author-pays-model/ (accessed 2 April 2018).

Anderson

(2015) Should we retire the term ‘predatory publishing’? The Scholarly Kitchen. Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-weretire-the-term-predatory-publishing (accessed 2 April 2018).

Anthony

(2015) Predatory journals. Home Healthcare Now 33(2): 65–66.

Arunachalam

(2006) Open access: Current developments in India. Available at: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/105554 (accessed 2 April 2018).

Beall

(2015a) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Available at: http://ssau.ru:8080/files/science/crpd/CriteriaBillPublishers2015.pdf (accessed 2 April 2018).

Beall

(2015b) Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development 31(5): 473–476.

Beall

(2016) Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature 534(7607): 326.

10.

Beall

(2018a) Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals. Available at: https://beallslist.weebly.com/standalone-journals.html (accessed 24 February 2018).

11.

Beall

(2018b) Potential predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Available at: https://beallslist.weebly.com (accessed 24 February 2018).

12.

Berger

Cirasella

(2015) Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College and Research Libraries News 76(3): 132–135.

13.

Betz

(2016) Authors beware: Open access predatory journals. Journal of Pediatric Nursing: Nursing Care of Children and Families 31(3): 233–234.

14.

Bohannon

(2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342: 60–65.

15.

Cartwright

(2016) Authors beware! The rise of the predatory publisher. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 44(8): 666–668.

16.

Clark

Smith

(2015) Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ: British Medical Journal 350: h10.

17.

Coyle

(2013) Predatory publishers peer to peer review. Library Journal. Available at http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/opinion/peer-to-peer-review/predatory-publishers-peer-to-peer-review/ (accessed 4 April 2013).

18.

Crawford

(2014a) Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites and Insights 14(4): 1–14.

19.

Crawford

(2014b) Journals, journals and wannabes: Investigating the list. Cites and Insights 14(7): 1–24.

20.

Darbyshire

McKenna

Lee

, et al. (2017) Taking a stand against predatory publishers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 73(7): 1535–1537.

21.

Das

Chatterjee

(2017) Say no to evil: Predatory journals, what we should know. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 28: 161–162.

22.

Demir

(2018a) The new Trojan horses of the science world: Predatory fake journals (PFJs), who publish in PFJs and why do they publish in these journals? Journal of Informetrics 12(4): 1296–1311.

23.

Demir

(2018b) A mixed-methods study of ex-post funding incentive policy for scholarly publications: Academic or economic? Journal of Scholarly Publishing 49(4): 1–28.

24.

Demir

(2018c) Pros and Cons of the New Fınancıal Support Polıcy For Turkısh Researchers. Scientometrics 116(3): 2053–68.

25.

Djuric

(2015) Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: The Romanian connection. Science and Engineering Ethics 21(1): 183–202.

26.

Emery

(2013) Heard on the Net: It’s a small world after all: Traveling beyond the viewpoint of American exceptionalism to the rise of the author. Charleston Advisor 15(2): 67–68.

27.

Eriksson

Helgesson

(2017) The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20(2): 163–170.

28.

Fernandez-Llimos

(2014) Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharmacy Practice 12: 427–428.

29.

Fitzpatrick

(2015) Predatory journals: When outcome is valued over quality. Applied Nursing Research 1(28): 1.

30.

Flanagan

(2015) Predatory publishers: Authors beware. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge 26(1): 1–1.

31.

Frandsen

(2017) Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics 113(3): 1513–1528.

32.

Gutierrez

Beall

Forero

(2015) Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays 37(5): 474–476.

33.

Hadi

(2016) Fake peer-review in research publication: Revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 24(5): 309–310.

34.

Kmietowicz

(2009) Students warned not to subscribe to journal ‘scam’. BMJ: British Medical Journal 338: 3.

35.

Kolata

(2013) Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too). The New York Times, 7. Available at: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/2306/kolata.pdf accessed 7 April 2013).

36.

Kozak

Iefremova

Hartley

(2016) Spamming in scholarly publishing: A case study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(8): 2009–2015.

37.

Kratochvíl

Plch

(2017) Predatory journals: How their publishers operate and how to avoid them. Vnitrni Lekarstvi Journal 63(1): 5–13.

38.

Kurt

(2018) Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing 31(2): 141–147.

39.

Lewis

Wulster-Radcliffe

(2014) Predators and impersonators: A new breed of journals. Animal Frontiers 4(1): 46–47.

40.

Lukić

Blešić

Basarin

, et al. (2014) Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers: A global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3): 69–81.

41.

McCrostie

(2017) Warning: Conmen and shameless scholars operate in this area. Times Higher Education, 12 January. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/warning-conmen-and-shameless-scholars-operate-area (accessed 12 January 2018).

42.

Macháček

Srholec

(2017) Predatory journals in SCOPUS. Working Paper. Available at: https://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/mobile/index.html (accessed 10 May 2018).

43.

Manca

Cugusi

Dvir

, et al. (2017a) PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion. The Lancet 390(10096): 734–735.

44.

Manca

Martinez

Cugusi

, et al. (2017b) The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience 353: 166–173.

45.

Masten

Ashcraft

(2016) The dark side of dissemination: Traditional and open access versus predatory journals. Nursing Education Perspectives 37(5): 275–277.

46.

Mehrpour

Khajavi

(2014) How to spot fake open access journals. Learned Publishing 27(4): 269–274.

47.

Moher

(2016) Stop predatory publishers now: Act collaboratively. Annals of Internal Medicine 164(9): 616–617.

48.

Nelson

Huffman

(2015) Predatory journals in library databases: How much should we worry? The Serials Librarian 69(2): 169–192.

49.

Nicholl

Chinn

(2015) Caught in the trap: The allure of deceptive publishers. Nurse Author and Educator 25(4): 4.

50.

Nolfi

Lockhart

Myers

(2015) Predatory publishing: What you don’t know can hurt you. Nurse Educator 40(5): 217–219.

51.

Nwagwu

(2015) Counterpoints about predatory open access and knowledge publishing in Africa. Learned Publishing 28(2): 114–122.

52.

Nwagwu

Ojemeni

(2015) Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: A bibliometric study. Learned Publishing 28(1): 23–34.

53.

Omobowale

Akanle

Adeniran

, et al. (2014) Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology 62(5): 666–684.

54.

Owens

(2015) More trends in predatory publishing practices. Nurse Author and Editor 25(1): 3.

55.

Pickler

Noyes

Perry

, et al. (2015) Authors and readers beware the dark side of Open Access. Journal of Advanced Nursing 71(10): 2221–2223.

56.

Poynder

(2013) The OA interviews: Ashry Aly of Ashdin Publishing. Available at: http://poynder.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-oa-interviews-ashry-aly-of-ashdin.html (accessed 18 January 2013).

57.

Pyne

(2017) The rewards of predatory publications at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 48(3): 137–160.

58.

Raghavan

Dahanukar

Knight

, et al. (2014) Predatory journals and Indian ichthyology. Current Science 107(5): 740–742.

59.

Roberts

(2016) Predatory journals: Illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. Journal of Sexual Medicine 13(12): 1830–1833.

60.

Savina

Sterligov

(2016) Potentially predatory journals in Scopus: Descriptive statistics and country-level dynamics. In: Nordic workshop on bibliometrics and research policy 2016. Available at: http://www.communication.aau.dk/digitalAssets/252/252872_nwb-2016-proceedings.pdf (accessed 10 May 2018).

61.

Shaw

(2013) Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. The Guardian, 4 October. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper (accessed 4 October 2013).

62.

Shen

Björk

B-C

(2015) ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13(1): 230.

63.

Simón

(2016) Pitfalls of predatory journals: A personal account. Comprehensive Psychology 5: 1–5.

64.

Truth

(2012) Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) 10(2): 54–105.

65.

Van Nuland

Rogers

(2017) Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing. Anatomical Sciences Education 10(4): 392–394.

66.

Vinny

Vishnu

Lal

(2016) Trends in scientific publishing: Dark clouds loom large. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 363(Supplement C): 119–120.

67.

Ward

(2016) The rise of predatory publishing: How to avoid being scammed. Weed Science 64(4): 772–778.

68.

Xia

(2015) Predatory journals and their article publishing charges. Learned Publishing 28(1): 69–74.

69.

Xia

Harmon

Connolly

, et al. (2015) Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(7): 1406–1417.

Scholarly databases under scrutiny

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References