COPE
Volume 5, Issue 1 (Feb 2017)                   Res Mol Med (RMM) 2017, 5(1): 1-5 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Talebi A. Roadmap to Stop the Predatory Journals: Author's Perspective. Res Mol Med (RMM). 2017; 5 (1) :1-5
URL: http://rmm.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-224-en.html
Abstract:   (1486 Views)

Recent disgracing reports are warning the scientific communities to think more about the solutions to win the battle against predatory journals and publishers. Current integrity and accuracy in science is a result of decades of honest works and publications which are an asset, now everyone as stakeholders of science should feel the responsibility to sustain its high privileged level. The ethical sides of this duty need careful considerations by science stakeholders worldwide. Boosting the weak resume, getting higher and faster promotion and permanent jobs in academia cannot figure out as reasonable excuses to publish unethically. Hereby, I suggest a practical roadmap based on certain strategies which are recommendable for the scientific community. This paper describes author‘s perspective about predatory journals and how we can stop them. Moreover, following the appearance of the predatory journal, this is a first article discussing root cause analysis on this global scientific problem. Last but not least, predatory journals are not too bad! Since they can be considered as a critical discriminatory tool to distinguish between individuals who work truly standard and who pretend to work standard. 

Full-Text [PDF 219 kb]   (520 Downloads)    
Type of Study: review | Subject: Medical Education
Received: 2017/03/18 | Accepted: 2017/05/3 | Published: 2017/05/3

References
1. 1. Beall, Jeffrey. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012; 489 (7415):179. PMID: 22972258 [DOI:10.1038/489179a]
2. Beall, Jeffrey. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly open access. 2015.
3. Bowman, John D. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014; 78 (10):176. PMID: 25657363 [DOI:10.5688/ajpe7810176]
4. Cariappa, MP, and Narinder Kumar. Predatory publishing: Writers beware! Med J Armed Forces India. 2015; 71 (3):300-1. PMID: 26288502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.08.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.06.014]
5. Crow R. Income models for open access: An overview of current practice. Washington: SPARC. 2009.
6. Eriksson, Stefan, and Gert Helgesson. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2016; 20(2): 163-170. PMID: 27718131 [DOI:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3]
7. Frantsvåg, Jan Erik. The role of advertising in financing open access journals. First Monday. 2010; 15 (3). [DOI:10.5210/fm.v15i3.2777]
8. Jones, James W, and Laurence B McCullough. Publishing corruption discussion: predatory journalism. J Vasc Surg. 2014; 59 (2):536-7. PMID: 24461869 [DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.12.001]
9. Nicoll, Leslie H, and Peggy L Chinn. Caught in the trap: The allure of deceptive publishers. Nurse Author & Editor. 2015; (4):4.
10. Stratford, Michael. Predatory" online journals lure scholars who are eager to publish. Chron High Educ. 2012.
11. Swan, Alma. Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. UNESCO. 2012.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author


© 2018 All Rights Reserved | Research in Molecular Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb