Why Predatory Journals Aren't to be Trusted

[swansont]

Warning: the link is R-rated

 

In a recent thread, the topic of predatory journals came up. Here's an example of why scientists don't trust the material they publish

 

"Get Me Off Your F***ing Mailing List" is an actual science paper accepted by a [predatory] journal

 

[A]n Australian computer scientist named Peter Vamplew sent it to theInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in response to spam from the journal. Apparently, he thought the editors might simply open and read it.

Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as "excellent" — and requested a fee of $150

The journal claims to peer-review their submissions, but the evidence here shows that they don't. The link also points to other examples of intentionally poor papers submitted to multiple vanity journals, and getting frighteningly high acceptance rates — around half.

[davidivad]

that is insanely rediculous to have such a problem...

i wonder how many toes a journal can have?

[ajb]

Wow, this is an extrema case.

 

My guidelines for where to publish are simple, but alas I once did not follow them to the letter and submitted to a new journal*.

 

1) There should be no publication fees.

 

2) You should have heard of someone on the editorial list.

 

3) People you know of should have published there already.

 

4) It should be a specialist journal. I often get emails from journals that have too wide of a scope.

 

5) They must have peer-review (goes without saying really) and a reasonable rejection rate.

 

6) They must be listed on Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH, and other lists. (This will be different depending on your subject) I try to use the IF as a gauge of the rank of the journal and submit work accordingly. The Australian Mathematical Society has a list of journal rankings which can also help. (http://www.austms.org.au/Rankings/AustMS_final_ranked.html)

 

7) If they call themselves 'The British journal of XYZ' but their office in in China, India or similar, then forget them.

 

8) They should have published something already that is close to what you have done. Ideally one of you references.

 

* with this new journal I published with, the publication house was at one time considered 'predatory'. However, I knew reputable people on some of the editorial boards and so risked it. Maybe I was lucky, but I know my paper was reviewed carefully, the reviewers' reports were detailed and highlighted some typos in the equations and a quicker proof of a theorem. The journal was very new with no reputation and they had no fees for a while to encourage people to submit. I will check on its IF when it gets one. Judging a new journal is difficult, but I applied my rules above as much as they applied.

Edited November 23, 2014 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

3 and 4 contradict each other.

Newly emerging fields need new journals otherwise the scope of the established ones gets overgrown.

However, a new journal logically can't have already got articles published by recognised experts.

 

There are, as you say, ways round this issue. One is the launch of a spin off journal from an established one.

[ajb]

3 and 4 contradict each other.

I would not say that my 'rules' are absolutely strict, but I don't see there is a contradiction here.

 

Newly emerging fields need new journals otherwise the scope of the established ones gets overgrown.

However, a new journal logically can't have already got articles published by recognised experts.

Typically, the editors of a new journal will publish work there themselves or ask experts to submit something. By the second issue you will have some idea. Also, journals today often list accepted papers before they are actually in print or online. Again you should be able to get some idea early on. Or at least that has been my experience with new journals.

[BrainTrainer]

You know journals (however good or bad they are) are the key to breaking new scientific grounds. In a country like ours (Pakistan), we realize that lack of journals and their availability makes it very difficult to keep yourself up to date with the latest stuff.

[John Cuthber]

It is unfortunate that many countries are not able to fund their own research, nor even to benefit from the research of others because the subscription costs of journals are high.

What would be even more of a tragedy would be if those limited funds were spent on journals that are utter rubbish.

Even if it is free, a bad journal is, at best, a waste of time. It may also be misleading.

[CharonY]

One should also note that many reputable journals charge publication fees. Most notably for open access, but also often color images and sometimes general page charges.

The impact factor can also be a relevant metric, as a high one indicates that articles are frequently cited. A common strategy is to look up the journals in your field and aim the for the highest IF for your paper that is reasonable.

 

 

You know journals (however good or bad they are) are the key to breaking new scientific grounds. In a country like ours (Pakistan), we realize that lack of journals and their availability makes it very difficult to keep yourself up to date with the latest stuff.

 

Do you mean journals for the scientific community or for the the public? The former happens on an international level and national journals (i.e. published in non-English languages) are typically marginalized in most disciplines.

[ajb]

...but also often color images and sometimes general page charges.

In mathematics I have not come across that, but those in biology say that it is quite common for colour graphs and so on.

[CharonY]

Yeah I assume that mathematics has slightly different rules from the experimental sciences. But there are also very different rules depending on the publisher. Nature, for example, only charges color pages, analytical chemistry is completely free, whereas some high-ranked society papers have a publication charges of up to 170$ per page. One distinguishing factor is that acceptance is independent of the fee and if you cannot pay an accepted paper is typically covered by the journal.

But there are also various degrees of licenses ranging from open access to some rather restrictive agreements.

Edited November 24, 2014 by CharonY

[swansont]

And the beat goes on

 

A paper by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel was accepted by two scientific journals

 

[H]e thought up the authors, along with a nonexistent affiliation ("Belford University") for them. "I wanted first and foremost to come up with something that gives out the fake immediately," he says. "My only regret is that the second author isn't Ralph Wiggum."

 

[Unity+]

There should be a law punishing this kind of act within the scientific community.

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Unity+

[CharonY]

Well, typically once identified they are shunned by the community (except for very desperate individuals). I am not sure whether actual laws would do anything, as no one is forced to send things there. Also publishers are free to choose their own editorial policies.

The only think I could think of is false advertisement, when they claim to do peer-review, but in fact do not.

[chadn737]

Science, Nature, PNAS, PLoS One...there are several reputable non-specialist journals.

In the Life Sciences I know of no journal that does not carry publication fees. As pointed out, a figure will cost you money. So does making it open access. Even if you publish in a highly reputable open access journal, like eLife (which is very high quality) or one of the PLoS journals, you will pay money....in some of the BMC journals, expect to pay ~$2000 for an open access paper.

[Unity+]

Science, Nature, PNAS, PLoS One...there are several reputable non-specialist journals.

In the Life Sciences I know of no journal that does not carry publication fees. As pointed out, a figure will cost you money. So does making it open access. Even if you publish in a highly reputable open access journal, like eLife (which is very high quality) or one of the PLoS journals, you will pay money....in some of the BMC journals, expect to pay ~$2000 for an open access paper.

I think scientific journals that don't take fees and actually peer-review the papers sent will get more money from revenue than anything, since they are the most credible. People, I would expect, read more reputable journals, though I could be wrong.

[ajb]

I think scientific journals that don't take fees and actually peer-review the papers sent will get more money from revenue than anything, since they are the most credible.

In mathematics the journals will make their money through library and institute subscriptions. Thus, they often don't make much money at all.

 

People, I would expect, read more reputable journals, though I could be wrong.

I am really not sure about this. Generally people who have done some good work will send it to good journals and so there is this natural tendency for what you have said. However, lots of people today just read the aXiv preprints and don't worry where the work has been published.

[chadn737]

An open access paper negates any profit from subscriptions and somebody has to pay for the maintenance of servers, editorial staff, web designers, etc.