How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals
2. Prior to Submission
2.2. Paid Pre-Submission Peer Review
2.3. Pre-Submission Community Peer-Review
3. During the Review Process
3.1. Open Peer Review
3.2. Additional Reviewer Request
4. After Acceptance
4.1. Post-Publication Peer Review
4.2. Open Recommendation
4.3. Non-Reviewed Treatment
5. Conclusions: Open and Credible Science
Conflicts of Interest
- Easterbrook, P.J.; Gopalan, R.; Berlin, J.A.; Matthews, D.R. Publication Bias in Clinical Research. Lancet 1991, 337, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, R. The “File Drawer Problem” and Tolerance for Null Results. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 638–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerr, N.L. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 2, 196–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmons, J.P.; Nelson, L.D.; Simonsohn, U. False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1359–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005, 2, e124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cobey, K.D.; Grudniewicz, A.; Lalu, M.M.; Rice, D.B.; Raffoul, H.; Moher, D. Knowledge and Motivations of Researchers Publishing in Presumed Predatory Journals: A Survey. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e026516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Björk, B. Acceptance Rates of Scholarly Peer-reviewed Journals: A Literature Survey. El Prof. De La Inf. 2019, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, L. Rich Nations Are Feeding Research Predators. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2017, 189, E1322–E1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Beall, J. Essential Information about Predatory Publishers and Journals. Int. High. Educ. 2016, 86, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Resnik, D.B. Stewardship of Research Resources. Account. Res. 2019, 26, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurt, S. Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learn Publ. 2018, 31, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Memon, A.R. How to Respond to and What to Do for Papers Published in Predatory Journals? Sci. Edit. 2018, 5, 146–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Klassen, B. Predatory Journals Can Wreak Havoc a Student’s Wallet and Tarnish Their Professional Reputation. The Runner. Available online: https://runnermag.ca/2019/04/predatory-journals-can-wreak-havoc-a-students-wallet-and-tarnish-their-professional-reputation/ (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Beall, J. Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2016, 31, 1511–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Culley, T.M. How to Avoid Predatory Journals When Publishing Your Work. Plant Sci. Bull. 2018, 64, 96–111. [Google Scholar]
- Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Cobey, K.D.; Lalu, M.M.; Galipeau, J.; Avey, M.T.; Ahmadzai, N.; Alabousi, M.; Barbeau, P.; Beck, A.; et al. Stop This Waste of People, Animals and Money. Nature 2017, 549, 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demir, S.B. Predatory Journals: Who Publishes in Them and Why? J. Inf. 2018, 12, 1296–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nosek, B.A.; Ebersole, C.R.; DeHaven, A.C.; Mellor, D.T. The Preregistration Revolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2600–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van’t Veer, A.E.; Giner-Sorolla, R. Preregistration in Social Psychology—A Discussion and Suggested Template. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 67, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikeda, A.; Xu, H.; Fuji, N.; Zhu, S.; Yamada, Y. Questionable Research Practices Following Preregistration. Jpn. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 62, 281–295. [Google Scholar]
- Yamada, Y. How to Crack Pre-Registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Lee, C. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network. Front. Comp. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Does the Removal of Results from a Submitted Paper Reduce Publication Bias? Pac. Sci. Rev. B Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2016, 2, 29–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Merton, R.K. The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered. Science 1968, 159, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamada, Y. Publish but Perish Regardless in Japan. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriegeskorte, N. How Can We Incentivize Post-Publication Peer Review? Available online: https://nikokriegeskorte.org/2020/07/26/how-can-we-incentivize-post-publication-peer-review/ (accessed on 2 December 2020).
- Ross-Hellauer, T. What is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review. F1000Research 2017, 6, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamilton, D.G.; Fraser, H.; Hoekstra, R.; Fidler, F. Meta-Research: Journal Policies and Editors’ Opinions on Peer Review. eLife 2020, 9, e62529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeCoursey, T. Pros and Cons of Open Peer Review. Nat. Neurosci. 1999, 2, 197–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Noorden, R. Publishers Withdraw more than 120 Gibberish Papers. Nature 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ikeda, K.; Yamada, Y.; Takahashi, K. Post-Publication Peer Review for Real. PsyArXiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriegeskorte, N. Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Front. Comp. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Kiermer, V. Community Comments and Peer Review: A Preprint Commenting Pilot at PLOS. The Official PLOS Blog. Available online: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2019/11/community-comments-and-peer-review-a-preprint-commenting-pilot-at-plos/ (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Vazire, S. A Toast to the Error Detectors. Nature 2020, 577, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Bladek, M. DORA: San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (May 2013). Coll. Res. Libr. News 2014, 75, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Bouter, L.; Kleinert, S.; Glasziou, P.; Sham, M.H.; Barbour, V.; Coriat, A.-M.; Foeger, N.; Dirnagl, U. The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020, 18, e3000737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaghaei, N.; Wien, C.; Holck, J.P.; Thiesen, A.L.; Ellegaard, O.; Vlachos, E.; Drachen, T.M. Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator—Researchers’ Thoughts after having Published in a Predatory Journal. Liber Q. 2018, 28, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
One reviewer commented on this topic as follows. “If many authors publish in a predatory journal by accident, then there is no intentional research misconduct. I would be far less forceful about this statement. Some institutions require authors to remove predatory publications from their CV (e.g., my institution). I think the answer to this problem is unclear and may be an individual judgment call. It is not black and white.” I can understand this sentiment. Although some researchers may be required to obey an institution’s order to erase the history of their papers in predatory journals, I believe that this situation should eventually be resolved by making everything public. However, as this reviewer says, the answer to this problem remains unclear, so I have provided both sides of this point here.
Of course, omission is not always unethical. Sometimes omissions are used for clarity or brevity (i.e., omissions of unimportant facts). However, evidence of publication in predatory journals is important for confirming the ethics of the researcher, and this information should not be omitted. Ideally, there should be a database that ensures that all researchers’ publications are included and made public. Currently, ORCID may not include predatory journals. For this reason, the completeness and openness of bibliographic information and its active use for researcher evaluation should be better encouraged in the future.
There are quality publishers that also provide rapid peer review (e.g., PLoS ONE).
It is unclear how many journals engage in this kind of act, as each journal has a different strategy, but assuming management with economic interests in mind, it is not surprising that some journals engage in such act.
A reviewer commented that some of my suggestions here might help journals that are not actually predatory but for some reason have been classified as “predatory” (e.g., too new, seemingly editorially unprofessional, insufficient credibility to approach good experts, etc.): Assuming that these journals might be honest it will help them to improve their systems but also salvage gain credibility. I heartily agree with this comment. Unbranded journals require a great deal of effort to ensure their credibility. I hope this paper will be useful to those who run journals.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Yamada, Y. How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals. Publications 2021, 9, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004
Yamada Y. How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals. Publications. 2021; 9(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004Chicago/Turabian Style
Yamada, Yuki. 2021. "How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals" Publications 9, no. 1: 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004