References
- 1Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson, “Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’,” Learned Publishing 31 (2018): 181–183, DOI: 10.1002/leap.1135 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 2Bo-Christer Björk, Sari Kanto-Karvonen and J. Tuomas Harviainen, “How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited,” Preprint, submitted December 20, 2019,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.10228.pdf (accessed 29 April 2020). - 3Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk, “‘Predatory’ Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics,” BMC Medicine 13 (2015): 230, DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 4Walt Crawford, “PPPPredatory Article Counts: An Investigation,” Cites & Insights 16, no. 1 (2016): 2–10,
http://citesandinsights.info/civ16i1.pdf (accessed 29 April 2020). - 5Shen and Björk, “‘Predatory’ Open Access”, 6.
- 6Mark Ware and Michael Mabe, “The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing,” 4th ed., (2015): 27,
http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 29 April 2020). - 7Walt Crawford, “Gray OA 2012–2016: Open Access Journals Beyond DOAJ,” Cites & Insights 17, no. 1 (2017): 30,
https://cical.info/civ17i1.pdf (accessed 29 April 2020). - 8Najmeh Shaghaei et al., “Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator: Researchers’ Thoughts after having Published in a Predatory Journal,” Liber Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2018): 8, DOI: 10.18352/lq.10259 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 9Rob Johnson, Anthony Watkinson and Michael Mabe, “The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing,” 5th ed. (2018): 25,
https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf (accessed 29 April 2020). - 10Heather Morrison, “Dramatic Growth of Open Access December 2015,” The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (blog), December 31, 2015,
https://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/12/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-december.html (accessed 29 April 2020). - 11Heather Morrison, “Dramatic Growth of Open Access Dec. 31, 2019,” Dataset available on Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1. (2020), 10.5683/SP2/CHLOKU (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 12Jocalyn Clark and Richard Smith, “Firm action needed on predatory journals,” BMJ 350 (2015): h210, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h210 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 13Andrew J Cohen et al., “Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, no. 8 (2019):
e13769 , DOI: 10.2196/13769 (accessed 29 April 2020); Mehdi Dadkhah, “What can authors do for the papers they published in predatory journals?,” Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, 126, no. 7–8 (2016): 7–8, DOI:https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.3485 (accessed 29 April 2020); Dalmeet Singh Chawla, “Predatory-journal papers have little scientific impact,” Nature News, (2020),https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00031-6 (accessed 29 April 2020). - 14Jeanette Hatherill, “At-Risk Articles: Brief Literature Analysis,” Report (2020)
http://hdl.handle.net/10393/40276 (accessed 29 April 2020). - 15Christine Laine and Margaret A. Winker, “Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals,” World Association of Medical Editors. February 15, 2017,
https://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals (accessed 29 April 2020). - 16Joseph Stromberg, “A reporter published a fake study to expose how terrible some scientific journals are,” Vox (2014),
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/24/5647106/a-reporter-published-a-fake-study-to-expose-how-terrible-some (accessed 29 April 2020). - 17Mike Taylor, “Anti-tutorial: how to design and execute a really bad study,” Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week (blog), October 7, 2013,
https://svpow.com/2013/10/07/anti-tutorial-how-to-design-and-execute-a-really-bad-study/ (accessed 29 April 2020); Gunther Eysenbach, “Unscientific spoof paper accepted by 157 “black sheep” open access journals – but the Bohannon study has severe flaws itself,” Gunther Eysenbach’s random research rants (blog), October 5, 2013,http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2013/10/unscientific-spoof-paper-accepted-by.html (accessed 29 April 2020). - 18Kelly D Cobey et al., “Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey,” BMJ Open 9 (2019):
e026516 , DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516 (accessed 29 April 2020); Shaghaei et al., “Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator,” p1–17; Cohen et al., “Perspectives From Authors and Editors”, e13769; Lynn E. McCutcheon et al., “How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals?,” North American Journal of Psychology 18, No. 3 (2016): 427–440. - 19Cobey et al. “Knowledge and motivations of researchers,” 4.
- 20Shaghei et al. “Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator,” 10.
- 21Cohen et al., “Perspectives From Authors and Editors,”
e13769 . - 22McCutcheon et al., “How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals?,” 434.
- 23McCutcheon et al., 435.
- 24Cobey et al. “Knowledge and motivations of researchers,” 8
- 25Cohen et al., “Perspectives From Authors and Editors,”
e13769 - 26McCutcheon et al., “How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals?,” 435–436.
- 27Agnes Grudniewicz et al., “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence,” Nature 576 (2019): 210–212, DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 28Clare Fiala, Bryant Lim and Eleftherios P. Diamandis, “The growing problem of predatory publishing: a case report,” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 58, no. 2 (2019): e51–e53, DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2019-0798 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 29Cohen et al., “Perspectives From Authors and Editors,” 8.
- 30Cobey et al., “Knowledge and motivations,” 8.
- 31Marjorie A. Bowman, John W. Saultz, and William R. Phillips, “Beware of Predatory Journals: A Caution from Editors of Three Family Medicine Journals,” The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 31, no. 5 (2018): 671–676, DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.180197 (accessed 29 April 2020); Alan H. Chambers, “How I became easy prey,” Science 364, no. 6440 (2019): 602, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.364.6440.602 (accessed 29 April 2020); John P. Harris, “Hazards of predatory publication,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 88, no. 1–2 (2018): 9, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14255 (accessed 29 April 2020); Aamir Raoof Memon, “How to respond to and what to do for papers published in predatory journals?,” Science Editing 5, no. 2 (2018): 146–149 DOI:https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.140 (accessed 29 April 2020); MD Witham and H Runcie, “Turning predator into prey – the problem of predatory journals,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 47, no. 1 (2017): 3–4, DOI:https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2017.101 (accessed 29 April 2020). - 32“San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment,”
https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed 29 April 2020). - 33McCutcheon et al., “How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals?,” 434.
- 34Marilyn H. Oermann et al., “Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals,” Nursing Outlook 66, no. 1 (2018): 4–10, DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 35COPE Forum, Case 16–22 “Withdrawal of accepted manuscript from predatory journal,”
https://publicationethics.org/case/withdrawal-accepted-manuscript-predatory-journal (accessed 29 April 2020). - 36Hatherill, “At-Risk Articles,” 5.
- 37Balehegn, “Increased Publication in Predatory Journals,” 97–100.
- 38Dadkhah, “What can authors do…?,” 7–8.
- 39Memon, “How to respond to and what to do,” 146–149.
- 40Fiala, Lim and Diamandis, “The growing problem of predatory publishing,” e51–e53; H. Benjamin Harvey and Debra F. Weinstein, “Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature,” Academic Medicine 92, no. 2 (2017): 150–151, DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001521 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 41COPE Council, “COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing,” (2019): 1–14, DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.3.6 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 42Dadkhah, “What can authors do…?”, 7–8.
- 43Harris, “Hazards of predatory publication,” 9.
- 44COPE Forum, Case 16–22 “Withdrawal.”
- 45Laine and Winker, “Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals.”
- 46Bowman, Saultz and Phillips, “Beware of Predatory Journals,” 673.
- 47COPE Council, “COPE Discussion Document,” 9.
- 48Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Panagiotis Tsigaris, “Academics must list all publications on their CV,” KOME – An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry 6, no. 1 (2018): 94–99, DOI:10.17646/KOME.2018.16 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 49Cobey et al., “Knowledge and motivations,” 4–5; McCutcheon et al., “How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals?,” 436.
- 50Tony Ross-Hellauer, “What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved],” F1000Research 6 (2017) 588, DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 (accessed 29 April 2020).
- 51Ernesto Galbán Rodríguez, “Preprints and preprint servers as academic communication tools,” Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud 30, no. 1 (2019): 1–27,
http://rcics.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/1324/802 (accessed 29 April 2020). - 52Open Science Framework FAQs,
https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/articles/360019737894-FAQs#Backup-Preservation-Policy (accessed 29 April 2020);https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/articles/360019737894-FAQs#what-if-you-run-out-of-funding-what-happens-to-my-data (accessed 29 April 2020). - 53BioRxiv FAQs,
https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ (accessed 29 April 2020). - 54COPE Forum, Case 16–22 “Withdrawal.”
- 55FTC Press Release, “FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers,” August 16, 2016,
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived (accessed 29 April 2020). - 56COPE Council, “COPE Discussion Document,” 8–9.