Utente:Marchitelli/Sandbox/predatory

Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.
Vai alla navigazione Vai alla ricerca

In academic publishing, predatory open access publishing is an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). "Beall's List", a regularly-updated report by Jeffrey Beall, sets forth criteria for categorizing predatory publications and lists publishers and independent journals that meet those criteria.[1] Newer scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of becoming the victim of these practices.[2][3]

History[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

In July 2008, Richard Poynder's interview series brought attention to the practices of new publishers who were "better able to exploit the opportunities of the new environment."[4][5]Template:Page needed Doubts about honesty and scams in a subset of open-access journals continued to be raised in 2009.[6][7] Concerns for spamming practices from the "black sheep among open access journals and publishers" ushered the leading open access publishers to create the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in 2008.[8] In another early precedent, in 2009 the Improbable Research blog had found that Scientific Research Publishing's journals duplicated papers already published elsewhere;[9] the case was subsequently reported in Nature.[10] In 2010, Cornell University graduate student Phil Davis (editor of the Scholarly Kitchen blog) submitted a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense (using SCIgen) which was accepted for a fee (but withdrawn by the author).[11]

Beall's List[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall, who coined the term "predatory publishing," first published his list of predatory publishers in 2010.[12] After noticing a large number of emails inviting him to submit articles or join the editorial board of previously unknown journals, he began researching open-access publishers and created Beall's List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers.[12] In August 2012 he posted his criteria for evaluating publishers,[12] with the second edition posted on December 1 the same year.[13] In February 2013 he added a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion in the list.[12] Beall has also written on this topic in The Charleston Advisor,[1] in Nature,[14] and in Learned Publishing.[15]

Bohannon's experiment[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

In a more recent test of this evolving system of publishing ("Who's Afraid of Peer Review?"), John Bohannon, a staff writer for the journal Science and for popular science publications, targeted the open access system in 2013 by submitting to a number of such journals a deeply flawed paper on the purported effect of a lichen constituent. About 60% of those journals, including the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, accepted the faked medical paper, and 40%, including the most established one, PLOS ONE, rejected it.[16] Bohannon's experiment was criticised in turn for not being peer-reviewed itself and for having a flawed methodology and lack of a control group.[17][18]

Characteristics[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

Complaints that are associated with predatory open-access publishing include

  • Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control,[19] including hoax and nonsensical papers.[11][20][21]
  • Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted.[19]
  • Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards.[12]
  • Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission,[1][22] and not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards.[1][23]
  • Appointing fake academics to editorial boards.[24]
  • Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals.[23]
  • Misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as a false location.[1]
  • Improper use of ISSNs.[1]
  • Fake[25][26] or non-existent impact factors.

Growth and structure[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

Predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals.[27][28] Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10–99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. The regional distribution of both the publisher’s country and authorship is highly skewed, in particular Asia and Africa contributed three quarters of authors. Authors paid an average article processing charge of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission.

Response[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

Beall's list[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

Beall's List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers attempts to identify scholarly open access publishers with questionable practices.[29] In 2013, Nature reported that Beall's list and web site are "widely read by librarians, researchers, and open-access advocates, many of whom applaud his efforts to reveal shady publishing practices."[12] Others have raised doubts that "Whether it's fair to classify all these journals and publishers as 'predatory' is an open question — several shades of gray may be distinguishable."[30]

Beall's analyses have been called sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence.,[31] and he has also been criticized for being biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries.[32] One librarian wrote that Beall's list "attempts a binary division of this complex gold rush: the good and the bad. Yet many of the criteria used are either impossible to quantify..., or can be found to apply as often to established OA journals as to the new entrants in this area... Some of the criteria seem to make First World assumptions that aren't valid worldwide."[33] Others find that it is wrong for a single person to maintain such a list, especially when lacking discipline knowledge.[34] Crawford has made critical attempts to verify Beall's list independently, and - documenting numerous instances of inconsistency and ambiguity - concludes that the lists should be ignored, and offers an alternative algorithm based primarily on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).[35] Beall differed with these opinions and wrote a letter of rebuttal in mid-2015.[36]

As a result of Beall's list and the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? investigation,[senza fonte] the DOAJ has tightened up its inclusion criteria, with the purpose of serving as a whitelist, very much like Beall's has been a blacklist.[37] The investigation found that "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control."[38] However, the managing director of DOAJ, Lars Bjørnshauge, estimates that questionable publishing probably accounts for fewer than 1% of all author-pays, open-access papers, a proportion far lower than Beall's estimate of 5-10%. Instead of relying on blacklists, Bjørnshauge argues that open-access associations such as the DOAJ and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association should adopt more responsibility for policing publishers: they should lay out a set of criteria that publishers and journals must comply with to win a place on a 'white list' indicating that they are trustworthy.[39]

Beall has been threatened with a lawsuit by a Canadian publisher that appears on the list. He reports that he has been the subject of online harassment for his work on the subject. His list has been criticized[35] for relying heavily on analysis of publishers' web sites, not engaging directly with publishers, and including newly founded but legitimate journals. Beall has responded to these complaints by posting the criteria he uses to generate the list, as well as instituting an anonymous three-person review body to which publishers can appeal to be removed from the list.[12] For example, a 2010 re-evaluation resulted in some journals being removed from Beall's list.[40]

The list is used as an authoritative source by South Africa's Department of Higher Education and Training in maintaining its list of accredited journals: articles published in those journals will determine funding levels for their authors; however, journals identified as predatory will be removed from this list.[41] ProQuest is reviewing all journals on Beall's list, and has started removing them from the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences.[41]

Other efforts[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

More transparent peer review, such as open peer review and post-publication peer review, has been advocated to combat predatory journals.[42] Others have argued instead that the discussion on predatory journals should not be turned "into a debate over the shortcomings of peer review – it is nothing of the sort. It is about fraud, deception, and irresponsibility..."[43]

In an effort to "set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones," principles of transparency and best practice have been identified and issued collectively by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors.[44] Various journal review websites (crowd-sourced or expert-run) have been started, some focusing on the quality of the peer review process and extending to non-OA publications.[45][46] A group of libraries and publishers launched an awareness campaign.[47][48]

A number of measures have been suggested to further combat predatory journals. Some have called research institutions to improve the publication literacy notably among junior researchers in developing countries.[49] As Beall has ascribed predatory publishing to a consequence of gold open access (particularly its author-pays variant),[15] one researcher has argued for platinum open access, where the absence of article processing charges removes the publisher's conflict of interest in accepting article submissions.[50] More objective discriminating metrics[51] have been proposed, such as a "predatory score"[52] and positive and negative journal quality indicators.[53] Others have encouraged authors to consult subject-area expert-reviewed journal listings, such as the Directory of Nursing Journals, vetted by the International Academy of Nursing Editors and its collaborators.[54] It has been argued that the incentives for fraud need to be removed.[55]

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has warned that predatory publishing, fabricated data, and academic plagiarism erodes public confidence in the medical profession, devalues legitimate science, and undermines public support for evidence-based policy.[56]

In 2015, Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriot Library, University of Utah, challenged the term itself: “what do we mean when we say ‘predatory,’ and is that term even still useful?... This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall’s critics: that he only examines one kind of predation—the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author-pays OA.” Anderson suggests that the term “predatory” be retired in the context of scholarly publishing. “It’s a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I’m not sure it’s helpfully descriptive… it generates more heat than light.”[57]

See also[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

Past inclusions
Current inclusions

References[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Carl Elliott, On Predatory Publishers: a Q&A With Jeffrey Beall, su chronicle.com, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 5, 2012.
  2. ^ Predatory Publishing: What Authors Need to Know, in Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 38, 2015, pp. 1–3, DOI:10.1002/nur.21640.
  3. ^ Who publishes in "predatory" journals?, in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 66, n. 7, 2014, pp. n/a, DOI:10.1002/asi.23265.
  4. ^ The Open Access Interviews: Dove Medical Press, su poynder.blogspot.co.uk. URL consultato il 13 April 2016.
  5. ^ Open Access, MIT Press, 2012.
  6. ^ Peter Suber, Ten challenges for open-access journals, October 2, 2009.
  7. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (2009), "Bentham Open", The Charleston Advisor, Volume 11, Number 1, July 2009, pp. 29-32(4) [1]
  8. ^ Eysenbach, Gunther. Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Originally posted 2008-03-08, updated (postscript added) 2008-04-21, 2008-04-23, 2008-06-03. [2]. Accessed: 2008-06-03. (Archived by WebCite at [3])
  9. ^ Marc Abrahams, Strange academic journals: Scam?, su improbable.com, 22 dicembre 2009. URL consultato il 13 gennaio 2015.
  10. ^ Katharine Sanderson, Two new journals copy the old, in Nature News, vol. 463, n. 7278, 13 gennaio 2010, pp. 148–148, DOI:10.1038/463148a. URL consultato l'11 aprile 2013.
  11. ^ a b Paul Basken, Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 10, 2009.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Declan Butler, Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing, in Nature, vol. 495, n. 7442, March 27, 2013, pp. 433–435, DOI:10.1038/495433a.
  13. ^ Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition), su scholarlyoa.com, December 1, 2012.
  14. ^ Predatory publishers are corrupting open access, in Nature, vol. 489, n. 7415, 2012, p. 179, DOI:10.1038/489179a.
  15. ^ a b Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access, in Learned Publishing, vol. 26, n. 2, 2013, pp. 79–83, DOI:10.1087/20130203.
  16. ^ John Bohannon, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, in Science, vol. 342, n. 6154, Sciencemag.org, Oct 2013, pp. 60–5, DOI:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. URL consultato il 7 ottobre 2013.
  17. ^ Martin Eve, What’s "open" got to do with it?, in Martin Eve, 3 October 2013. URL consultato il 7 October 2013.
  18. ^ Eisen Michael, I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals, in it is NOT junk, 3 October 2013. URL consultato il 7 October 2013.
  19. ^ a b Michael Stratford, 'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4, 2012. Template:Subscription required
  20. ^ Natasha Gilbert, Editor will quit over hoax paper, in Nature, June 15, 2009, DOI:10.1038/news.2009.571.
  21. ^ Michael Safi, Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list, November 25, 2014..
  22. ^ Jeffrey Beall, Predatory Publishing, in The Scientist, August 1, 2012.
  23. ^ a b Gina Kolata, For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia, in The New York Times, April 7, 2013.
  24. ^ Ralf Neumann, "Junk Journals" und die "Peter-Panne", in Laborjournal, February 2, 2012.
  25. ^ Jeffrey Beall, Bogus New Impact Factor Appears, su scholarlyoa.com, February 11, 2014.
  26. ^ New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations (PDF), in Electronic Physician , vol. 5, n. 3, 2013, pp. 685–686.
  27. ^ Cenyu Shen, ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics, in BMC Medicine, vol. 13, n. 1, 1º ottobre 2015, p. 230, DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
  28. ^ Carl Straumsheim, Study finds huge increase in articles published by 'predatory' journals, su insidehighered.com, October 2015. URL consultato il 15 febbraio 2016.
  29. ^ List of Publishers, su scholarlyoa.com. URL consultato il 30 April 2016.
  30. ^ The Downside of Open-Access Publishing, in New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, n. 9, 2013, pp. 791–793, DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1214750.
  31. ^ Reactionary Rhetoric Against Open Access Publishing, in tripleC, vol. 12, n. 2, 2014, pp. 441–446.
  32. ^ Beyond Beall’s List, in College & Research Libraries News, March 2015, 132–135. URL consultato il 15 June 2015.
  33. ^ Karen Coyle, Predatory Publishers – Peer to Peer Review, in Library Journal, April 4, 2013.
  34. ^ Peter Murray-Rust, Beall's criticism of MDPI lacks evidence and is irresponsible, in petermr's blog, February 18, 2014.
  35. ^ a b Walt Crawford, (July 2014), "Journals, 'Journals' and Wannabes: Investigating The List", Cites & Insights, 14:7, ISSN 1534-0937 (WC · ACNP)
  36. ^ Response to "Beyond Beall’s List", su crln.acrl.org.
  37. ^ Open-access website gets tough, in Nature, vol. 512, n. 7512, 2014, p. 17, DOI:10.1038/512017a.
  38. ^ Who's afraid of peer review?, in Science, vol. 342, n. 6154, 4 October 2013, pp. 60–65, DOI:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
  39. ^ Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing, in Nature, vol. 495, n. 7442, 2013, pp. 433–435, DOI:10.1038/495433a.
  40. ^ Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing, in Nature, vol. 495, n. 7442, 2013, pp. 433–435, DOI:10.1038/495433a.
  41. ^ a b Accredited Journals, su www0.sun.ac.za, Stellenbosch University.
  42. ^ Bonnie Swoger, Is this peer reviewed? Predatory journals and the transparency of peer review., su blogs.scientificamerican.com, Scientific American, November 26, 2014.
  43. ^ Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals, in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 107, n. 10, 2014, pp. 384–385, DOI:10.1177/0141076814548526.
  44. ^ Committee on Publication Ethics, Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
  45. ^ Rate that journal, in Nature, vol. 520, n. 7545, 30 March 2015, pp. 119–120, DOI:10.1038/520119a.
  46. ^ Quality Open Access Market and Other Initiatives: A Comparative Analysis, in LIBER Quarterly, vol. 24, n. 4, Association of European Research Libraries, 2015, p. 162, DOI:10.18352/lq.9911.
  47. ^ Avoiding fake journals and judging the work in real ones, su sciencemag.org, October 13, 2015.
  48. ^ Awareness Campaign on 'Predatory' Publishing, su insidehighered.com, October 2, 2015.
  49. ^ Firm action needed on predatory journals, in BMJ, vol. 350, 2015, DOI:10.1136/bmj.h210.
  50. ^ (Gold) Open Access: the two sides of the coin, in ox.ac.uk.
  51. ^ Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing, in Journal of Information Ethics, vol. 22, n. 1, 2013, pp. 11–20, DOI:10.3172/jie.22.1.11.
  52. ^ How to better achieve integrity in science publishing, in European Science Editing, vol. 39, n. 4, 2013.
  53. ^ Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators, in Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, vol. 2, n. 2, 2014, DOI:10.7710/2162-3309.1133.
  54. ^ "Predatory Publishers: What Editors Need to Know." Nurse Author & Editor, September 2014. [4]. Republished as open access in: Predatory Publishing, in Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, vol. 59, n. 6, 2014, pp. 569–571, DOI:10.1111/jmwh.12273.
  55. ^ Template:Cite thesis
  56. ^ The Problem of Publication-Pollution Denialism, in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 90, n. 5, 2015, pp. 565–566, DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.02.017.
  57. ^ Anderson R. Should We Retire the Term "Predatory Publishing"? The Scholarly Kitchen. May 11, 2015. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-we-retire-the-term-predatory-publishing/ Retrieved September 25, 2015.
  58. ^ Listed as on a "watchlist" but not as a confirmed predatory publisher in 2012: Jeffrey Beall, Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers, 2012 Edition (PDF).. See also Template:Harvtxt: "A set of Hindawi's journals appeared on a version of Beall's list because he had concerns about their editorial process, but has since been removed."

External links[modifica | modifica wikitesto]

[[Category:Open access (publishing)]] [[Category:Ethically disputed business practices]]

Estratto da "https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utente:Marchitelli/Sandbox/predatory&oldid=83831255"