This is a serious problem in academic publishing. In fact, some universities trying to pose themselves as productive actually encourage faculty to publish in these outlets. Well, I should say I know of at least one Dean who promoted it for faculty.
However, it is also important to know that these journals have no standards and will publish anything you send. They are actually below the status of a non-peer reviewed scholarly journal, because the non-peer reviewed outlets do have editorial oversight. A buddy of mine sent a paper to one of these shady journals and got acceptance in something like 2 hours! However these are not new problems. For decades there have been scam conferences and conference proceedings that some academics use for various reasons. We call them predatory, but that really is not the right descriptor. Although some people may submit to one accidentally, I can't imagine anyone submitting an article to one being naive enough to believe peer review came back in 2 hrs with no comments and full acceptance as is. Finally, these journals DO have legitimate purpose of sorts, although other avenues might be more wise. A friend of mine in a different discipline (outside of science) was irate because the leading organization in his field (I'll call it the Assoc of Widget Makers) was promoting a lack of PHDs in their discipline and the need to expand PHD programs, etc. The problem was that there was no lack of PHDs! So, he did his homework, got the numbers of grads, the numbers of jobs, etc. I read the article before he sent it in. Frankly, there was no way he was wrong, he was 100% right. The production was off the charts higher than the declining number of openings that existed! However, politics was in play. The organization had decided they wanted to promote this nonsensical idea. The paper was sent to organization's journal, and they rejected it without review. HE then sent it to the newsletter/bulletin and they refused to publish it. All said and done, he could not make his findings public. I suggested that he consider writing a book or setting up a website. His Dean had been telling people to submit garbage to scam journals to give the appearance of productivity when they market the program. Yes, this is an accredited state-run institution. (yes, this dean is gone He talked to me about it, and we looked up the citations to papers in these "scam journals." Amazingly, there were occasional solid papers published in them, mostly by people who did not have english as a first (or second) language. After much deliberation, and discussion with several of his associates, he paid the fee and published his article in one of those journals. The paper has only been cited 9 times, but ALWAYS in good journals in that field, and it did result in at least acknowledgement that the promoted idea that there was a shortage was false. Also, most articles never get 9 citations, so that is pretty decent for a paper on a topic that had a limited focus, target, and time-frame involved. Essentially, all the papers on the topic cited it and were forced to address the alternative view. None of this is intended to support these scam journals, they are what they are, I have yet to find any reason to send anything to one, and doubt I EVER will. But, occasionally they might have a legitimate purpose, although they are increasingly being excluded from indexes. I noticed his paper was no longer picked up by ProQuest (does anyone use that?). I would be inclined ot simply publish something like this as a white paper and send it to PeerJ Preprints or something like ArXiv. IF you think something is really important to say, and you are being quieted by dishonest parties, you will need to take some non-traditional and less preferred roads to get the word out. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:03 AM, HerpDigest <asalzb...@herpdigest.org> wrote: > A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals > By GINA KOLATAMARCH 22, 2017, New York Times > > The applicant’s nom de plume was not exactly subtle, if you know Polish. > The middle initial and > surname of the author, Anna O. Szust, mean “fraudster.” Her publications > were fake and her degrees > were fake. The book chapters she listed among her publications could not > be found, but perhaps that > should not have been a surprise because the book publishers were fake, too. > > Yet, when Dr. Fraud applied to 360 randomly selected open-access academic > journals asking to be > an editor, 48 accepted her and four made her editor in chief. She got two > offers to start a new journal > and be its editor. One journal sent her an email saying, “It’s our > pleasure to add your name as our > editor in chief for the journal with no responsibilities.” > > Little did they know that they had fallen for a sting, plotted and carried > out by a group of researchers > who wanted to draw attention to and systematically document the seamy side > of open-access > publishing. While those types of journals began with earnest aspirations > to make scientific papers > available to everyone, their proliferation has had unintended consequences. > > Traditional journals typically are supported by subscribers who pay a fee > while authors pay nothing to > be published. Nonsubscribers can only read papers if they pay the journal > for each one they want to > see. > > Open-access journals reverse that model. The authors pay and the published > papers are free to > anyone who cares to read them. > > Publishing in an open-access journal can be expensive — the highly > regarded Public Library of > Science (PLOS) journals charge from $1,495 to $2,900 to publish a paper, > with the fee dependent on > which of its journals accepts the paper. > > Not everyone anticipated what would happen next, or to what extent it > would happen. The open- > access business model spawned a shadowy world of what have been called > predatory journals. They > may have similar names to legitimate journals, but exist by publishing > just about anything sent to > them for a fee that can range from under $100 to thousands of dollars. > > The fee often is between $100 and $400, said Jeffrey Beall, scholarly > communications librarian at the > University of Colorado, Denver, as the journals compete for paying > customers. Of course, it is easier > for predatory journals to have low fees because their expenses are minimal. > > The researchers decided not to list any of the fake journals that they > uncovered in the sting, saying > that some have names so close to those of legitimate journals that it > would be confusing. > > There are now thousands of fake open-access journals, about as many as > legitimate ones, according > to one of the creators of Dr. Fraud, Katarzyna Pisanski, a researcher in > the School of Psychology at > the University of Sussex in England, and her colleagues. > > It was that alternate world that Dr. Fraud tapped into. The legitimate > journals rejected her application > out of hand, but many fake ones did not hesitate to take her on. > > The investigators, writing about their sting operation in Nature, said > they had seen young colleagues > fall for the blandishments of predatory journals, not realizing that the > emails they received were from > publications that only wanted their money. Dr. Pisanski and her colleagues > wanted to help > researchers understand how fake journals operated. > > “The emails can be very flattering,” Dr. Pisanski said, telling the > recipients they are “eminent > researchers” and “inviting” them to contribute. When researchers respond > and send in papers, “they > are published at lightning speed, often without peer review,” she said. > > But not everyone who publishes in these journals is an innocent dupe. Mr. > Beall, who until recently > published a list of predatory journals, said he believes many researchers > know exactly what they are > doing when they publish there. > > “I believe there are countless researchers and academics, currently > employed, who have secured > jobs, promotions, and tenure using publications in pay-to-publish journals > as part of their credentials > and experience for the jobs and promotions they got,” Mr. Beall said. > > And it can require real diligence on the part of employers to ferret out > those questionable > publications, Mr. Beall said. > > “Examining someone’s publications now requires close scrutiny,” Mr. Beall > said. “Merely eyeballing a > C.V. is insufficient now.” > > David Knutson, the manager of communications at PLOS, said that young > researchers may feel > relentless pressure to publish, at all costs. > > “These authors are shopping around their papers,” he said. “There is so > much pressure to publish.” > > As for Dr. Fraud, she got some lucrative offers. One journal suggested she > organize a conference, > whose papers would then be published; she would get 40 percent of the > proceeds. Another invited > her to start a new journal and offered her 30 percent of the profits. > > Dr. Pisanski and her colleagues told the journals that accepted Dr. Fraud > that she wanted to withdraw > her application to be an editor. But it was not easy to withdraw. > > Dr. Fraud remains listed as a member of the editorial boards of at least > 11 of those journals. She is > also listed as a member of conference-organizing committees. At least one > journal she did not apply > to also listed her as an editor. > > And, Dr. Pisanski and her colleagues wrote, Dr. Fraud is even listed as an > advisory board member of > the Journals Open Access Indexing Committee. Its mission? To “increase the > visibility and ease of > use of open-access scholarly journals.” > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Aquaculture and Water Quality Research Scientist School of Agriculture and Applied Sciences Langston University Langston, Oklahoma Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO Google Scholar citation page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lOHMjvYAAAAJ&hl=en Academia.edu: https://ui-springfield.academia.edu/MalcolmMcCallum/Analytics#/activity/overview?_k=wknchj Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab> Ratemyprofessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=706874 *Confidentiality Notice:* This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. “*Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.* ” *-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law.* "*Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive*" -* Allan Nation* *1880's: *"*There's lots of good fish in the sea*" W.S. Gilbert *1990's:* Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction *MAY* help restore populations. 2022: "Soylent Green is People!" Charleton Heston as Detective Thorn 2022: "People were always awful, but their was a world once, and it was beautiful.' Edward G. Robinson as Sol Roth. The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle
