Personal View International Journal of
Pharmacy Practice International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2018, 26, pp. 73–76
Differentiating predatory scholarship: best practices in scholarly publication Jimmy Gonzaleza
, Mary Barna Bridgemanb,c and Evelyn R. Hermes-DeSantisb,c
a
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Western New England University College of Pharmacy, Springfield, MA, bDepartment of Pharmacy Practice
and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, and cRobert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Keywords open access; predatory; publication Correspondence Evelyn R. Hermes-DeSantis, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 160 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Received August 3, 2016 Accepted April 4, 2017 doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12380
Abstract Objective The intent of this article is to define predatory publishing, identify the risks and costs associated with publishing scholarship with these types of organizations and to provide recommendations for best practices how a potential author can protect themselves against predatory organizations. Methods A thorough review of the literature concerning predatory publishing was conducted and gleaned for best practices along with the authors’ experiences. Key findings Pharmacy scholars and researchers worldwide recognize the virtues of the open access (OA) publication system, which is intended to freely disseminate research electronically, stimulate innovation and improve access to scholarship. Both subscription-based and OA publication systems, however, have potential areas of conflicts, including coordination of the peer-review process and the potential for the publisher to capitalize on selling the commodity in a capitalistic society. The intent of OA is welcomed; however, publishers are still in a business and profits need to be made. It is by the exploitation of the model that has given rise to a small but growing subset known as predatory publishers. Conclusions Pharmacy researchers and clinicians alike need to be aware of predatory organizations, both publishers and meeting organizers, when seeking a venue to publish their own scholarly research. Additionally, this knowledge is critical when evaluating medical literature in providing direct patient care services to assure the best available evidence is utilized.
Introduction The premise of an open access (OA) publication system is to increase the availability of literature published in electronic journals or repositories, free of copyrights or licensing restrictions.[1,2] OA falls into one of two general categories, gold or green.[2] In gold OA, the author may pay a publication fee (article processing charge (APC)) in exchange for allowing free, unrestricted access to their articles from the publisher.[1,2] In contrast, in green OA, articles are self-archived for distribution from an author’s personal website, an institutional repository or a subjectbased repository (e.g. PubMedCentral). Confusion surrounding this terminology led to the development of the SHERPA/RoMEO colour coding system (green, blue, yellow, white) to classify publisher-granted archiving rights for self-archived scholarly work. This system is used to © 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society
highlight publishers archiving policies from archives of pre-print and post-print material (green) through archiving not supported (white).[3] Generally, green OA publications do not incur APCs.[1] The virtues of OA publication are recognized worldwide. The rapid expansion of OA began over a decade ago to stimulate innovation and to improve access without the impedance of subscription paywalls.[2,4] Free access generated higher citation rates for OA articles.[4] Recently, the United States (US) government Office of Science and Technology Policy has issued a memorandum calling for increased public access to federally funded research, and this has led to the proposal of the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act in the House (H.R. 1477) and the Senate (S. 779) requiring International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2018, 26, pp. 73--76
74
qualifying executive agencies to develop public access policies for OA research distribution. As of June 2016, nearly 9000 journals containing in excess of 2 million articles have been indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ; www.doaj.org), an online abstracting and indexing service of high-quality OA journals and articles, marking a substantial increase from the 1.5 million articles included in early 2014.[5] Whilst the intent of OA is welcomed, many publishers are generally businesses with a need to make to make a profit and therefore justifiably charge APCs in lieu of a subscription payment. An exception would be gratis trade journals that are affiliated to professional associations, societies and non-profit organizations, whose membership fees and advertising revenue from commercial sources offset publication costs. As the OA model has increasingly become the norm, with an expectation to pay APCs, this has given rise to a small but growing subset of businesses known as predatory publishers. Much has already been published on this topic and its related aims in medicine, nursing and pharmacy.[5] The purpose of this article was to inform the pharmacy practitioner engaging in scholarship of the dangers of predatory publishing and how to avoid it.
What is predatory publishing? There is no universally accepted definition of predatory publishing or predatory journals. Jeffery Beall coined the phrase predatory publisher in 2008 to describe unprofessional abuse of the publication system.[4,6,7] This might include eliminating the peer-review process, promising quick turnaround time and minimizing their associated review costs.[6] These publishers solicit established authors and researchers via email for manuscripts, editorial board membership and invitations to expensive conferences, sometimes outside their scope of practice.[6] Due to this inherent conflict of interest, a predatory organization, by definition, must charge APCs or other fees to its user base. Although coined in 2008, predatory publishing practices have long existed, but, with the advent of the Internet, this practice has blossomed. Shen and Bjork noted a rapid, linear increase in predatory publication volumes from 53 000 articles in 2010 to an estimated 420 000 in 2014 with publications in 8000 active journals of which approximately 70 000 articles were in biomedicine. The publisher countries of origin were heavily skewed towards India (27.1%) and indeterminate locations (26.8%), and regional distribution of corresponding authors were likewise skewed to Asia and Africa. The market size for predatory publications in 2014 was estimated at $74 million, contrasted with an estimated $244 million for reputable OA journals in 2013.[8] © 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Best practices in scholarly publication
What’s wrong about publishing or presenting in these forums? Whilst free access to scientific research stimulates innovation and spreads knowledge, exploitation of the OA system does a disservice to all stakeholders. With the expansion of OA publication and the low financial barrier to entry into online publishing, a small number of publishers may be unethical or unscrupulous,[6,9] reaping financial gain from unsuspecting researchers and clinicians needing publications for career advancement. They may have a journal title that sounds misleadingly similar to the title of a wellestablished journal. Worse yet, established academics have been misled to join predatory publishers’ journal editorial boards or have been falsely listed as editors.[9] A major tenet of OA is free accessibility of information to readers. This is mostly achieved through use of abstracting and indexing services, such as MEDLINE, Embase and the DOAJ. To be listed on these databases, a formal application process and full scrutiny is undertaken and it is unlikely that predatory publishers would meet the criteria for inclusion as described above. However, they may claim to index their journal articles in numerous locations, but either list non-abstracting and indexing services (e.g. Scribd) or misrepresent their coverage in legitimate indices. The peer-review process, delays in publication acceptance and higher rejection rates may mean some authors inadvertently submit their work to a predatory OA journals in the interest of getting it published. These authors may not realize their articles will not be indexed with major abstracting services. An indirect victim of predatory publishing may be the patient. Given the growing presence of predatory publications, pharmacy clinicians must investigate literature provenance when developing evidence-based medicine recommendations and not refer to an article that has not been appropriately peer-reviewed.
How much does it cost? A recent study reported statistically significant differences in predatory publisher APCs based on publisher size. Between 2010 and 2014, predatory publishers curating >100 journals charged higher average APCs ($796) than single-journal publishers ($83); the overall average amounted to $178 per article.[8] Thus, these organizations may charge similar or even lower APCs than legitimate OA journals – or engage the author in negotiation over fees – and reap huge profit margins. In practice, APCs for OA journals vary considerably depending on multiple factors including the geographic location of the author, author membership with the publisher, manuscript length and correlation to impact factor. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2018, 26, pp. 73--76
Jimmy Gonzalez et al.
75
How to identify a predatory publisher or organization The range of sophistication through which predatory organizations operate varies considerably. Some publishers do not state that APCs are required until after a manuscript has been accepted for publication.[7] Less subtly, some organizations aggressively solicit clinicians and scholars through email campaigns, inviting them to publish in their journals or lecture at domestic and international professional conferences. A few personalize emails to extol an author’s previous works before inviting them to publish in the journal. Still others promise rapid publication through an expedited peer-review process. The Committee on Publication Ethics published guidance petitioning for transparency throughout the process of scholarly publication, including peer-review policies, selection of editorial board members and affiliations, upfront definitions of APCs, financial conflict of interests and direct marketing activities by the organization.[10] Additional examples of criteria that can be used to differentiate predatory publishing from OA were previously
available from Jeffery Beall’s now defunct webpage and appear in Table 1.
How can authors protect themselves? When deliberating in which journal to publish, the author should consult the DOAJ to determine the legitimacy of the target press. Furthermore, prospective authors should check the veracity of metrics purported by journals of interest, such as impact factor, and verify the functionality of DOI or other unique identifiers. The ‘Think. Check. Submit.’ initiative (www.thinkchecksubmit.org) provides a good framework. Learning where the organization is based and whether their editorial board members practice within the scope of the journal are prudent first steps. Organizations that hide their APCs or advertise extremely quick article turnover should be avoided. The potential author should be wary of grammatical and typographical errors as well as poor website design. Although lack of professionalism does not always indicate a predatory intention, these publishers may be amateur. Avoidance of answering ‘cold calls’ for articles or attendance at foreign
Table 1 Characteristics of open access and predatory publishers[4,5,10] Criteria
Open access
Predatory
Peer review
Clearly states peer-review process; involves reviewers who are experts in their fields Governing body is recognized expert in subject area within journal’s scope Members are listed; easily accessible contact information Clearly stated Clearly described on webpage; authors retain copyright privileges on their intellectual property Plan in place for identifying and preventing plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication, etc. Transparent ownership and management structure
Obfuscates or forgoes peer review
Governing body Editorial team Article processing charges Copyright Identification of research misconduct
Ownership and management Website Journal name Conflicts of interest Access Revenue sources
Fully transparent and truthful Unique name; represent scope; not confused for other publications Clear policies for authors, editors and reviewers Unrestricted, electronic access to content Business model transparent
Advertising
Statement on practices and how their commercial affiliates are linked to the content
Publishing schedule Archiving
Clearly stated publication frequency Plan for preservation of content through backups and other repositories, even if journal no longer published Conducts appropriate, unobtrusive and well-targeted marketing of solicitations
Direct marketing
International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2018, 26, pp. 73--76
No governing body or outside the subject area or scope of journal No direct contact information; web-based contact forms only Hidden or not advertised Not discussed or author relinquishes copyright No plans established for determining veracity of manuscript information Misleading organization affiliations; may mimic other established journals Misleading, misrepresenting text Similar title to other journals; name does not match content of the journal No policy or statements No explanation of business model or revenue sources No explanation of advertisements; intrusive ads which may be unrelated to the journal content or specialty Ambiguous or variable publication schedule Lacks electronic backups or preservation strategy for its articles Engages in intrusive solicitation for manuscripts, editorial board membership, or conferences
© 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society
76
Best practices in scholarly publication
Table 2 Additional criteria to identify a predatory meeting[5,9] Questionable meeting organizer practices Refuses to refund registration fees even after meeting cancellation Sends invitations for meetings outside your scope of practice Meeting seems extremely similar to or copies directly a reputable, established conference
conferences, especially when outside of the author’s field of practice, is suggested. Additional criteria for identifying questionable meetings and conferences by predatory organizations can be located in Table 2. When considering an unsolicited request for a manuscript, authors should perform due diligence by researching the individual reaching out. Questions to ask include: Is the journal domestic or international, and are they transparent about their editorial board composition? Is the meeting recognized by a national or international healthcare organization? Will there be continuing education credit offered for participation? Are the fees associated with registration particularly high? Is it the inaugural meeting being held? Additionally, authors should be cautious when citing predatory articles in their own work. Pharmacy scholars need to scrutinize the legitimacy and quality of research published as the growing body of predatory publishing has the potential to adversely affect the quality of articles.
Conclusion An unscrupulous publishing practice is emerging within the OA literature. Predatory publishers deceive potential authors with enticing promises but fail to follow through with their claims, instead circumventing peer-review processes, publishing articles onto websites without connecting to indexing services, and sometimes providing
References 1. Suber P. Open access overview: focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints [internet]. [Updated 7 July 2015; cited 7 Sept 2015]. http://legacy.earlham.ed u/~peters/fos/overview.htm. 2. Laakso M et al. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20961. 3. University of Nottingham. SHERPA/ RoMEO: Definitions and terms [internet]. [Updated 2017; cited 12 Jan
© 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society
4.
5.
6.
7.
fictitious DOI numbers. These organizations seek to maximize revenue at the expense of academic integrity. Authors contemplating publication or presentation should not be lured by rapid review processes, editorial board memberships, international conferences or other ploys that could result in exorbitant fees and their research never reaching the larger audience it may deserve. Instead, authors should perform due diligence in vetting potential publishers or platforms for disseminating their scholarship that are reputable and adhere to the standards for ethics in publication. As OA journals continue to grow, the problem of predatory scholarship is not likely to resolve; however, through awareness of these practices, clinician researchers can protect themselves, their reputations and their scholarship.
Declarations Conflict of interest The Author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Authors’ contributions JG: Introduction, main text, editing; MBB: abstract, main text revisions, editing; EH-D: conclusions, main text revisions, editing. All Authors state that they had complete access to the study data that support the publication.
2017]. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/rome o/definitions.php. Beall J. Medical publishing triage – chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg 2013; 2: 47–49. Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ 2014; 7: 176. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012; 489: 179. Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature 2013; 495: 433–435.
8. Shen C, Bj€ ork BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13: 230. 9. Kolata G. Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too). The New York Times 2013 April 8; A1. 10. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (version 2) [internet]. [Updated 22 June 2015; cited 11 June 2016]. http://www.publicatione thics.org.
International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2018, 26, pp. 73--76
