[…] automated processing, correction, and linking of bibliographic references; and automated checks for citations to retracted articles or articles published in predatory journals. Save time and reduce billing errors through more efficient handling of multiple OA agreements and APC rates. Automating […]
[…] wrote that four year ago, I asked for a tool that would automatically review and flag reference lists for so-called predatory journals and now my wish has been granted! These kinds of messages don’t come often and so I was […]
[…] to be a viable business model to many reputed publishers, while many researchers may consider it no less than so-called predatory publishing. In this highly connected world, we may think that the business of research or knowledge creation maintains a basic […]
[…] an APC is reasonable or not. In some respects, a higher APC represents a form of insurance. The rise of predatory publishers charging low fees, has increased the risks for authors. If a librarian subscribes to a bad journal, they […]
[…] journals check if the references cited in a manuscript are relevant, not produced by papermills, and are not from any predatory/fake/hijacked journals? After extracting 130 million hours from researchers every year to do peer reviewing for us, if we can’t […]
Given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?
[…] the CAS EWL differentiate itself from other international lists such as Beall’s? Beall’s list is different as it is for predatory journals. Chinese researchers focus on publication in WoS or Scopus journals, and as most predatory journals from Beall’s list […]
[…] with librarians and policy experts, the topics that need urgent discussion include: What can the OA community do about so-called predatory OA publishers? Is the author-pays model to blame for their existence? Is OA publishing going to cost taxpayers more? […]
[…] open access not only fell short of its ambitions, but in some cases produced unintended consequences, including the rise of predatory publishing, the normalization of pay-to-publish models, growing inequities, and new opportunities for publishers to extract revenue through “double dipping”. Whether […]
[…] great strides in the last decade. Folks are starting to come around to thinking that not all OA journals are predatory or chock full of junk science. Public access to federally funded research, something threatened for years, is now a […]
[…] bristled at comments such as: “Yes – there are benefits to more freely and quickly sharing science. But preprints join predatory publishers and paper mills to fuel a growing challenge for our society: distinguishing credible science from inaccurate, biased, and […]
Two years after its initial entry into the marketplace, Cabell’s Blacklist has matured into a carefully crafted and highly useful directory of predatory and deceptive journals.
An interview with MDPI’s CEO, Dr. Franck Vazquez, sheds light on the challenges and innovations during the last 20 years of open-access publishing.
[…] Research integrity and trust in science Strong concern about eroding public trust in science, the spread of misinformation, paper mills, predatory journals, and compromised peer review. Several called for cross-industry standards and coordinated publisher action on retractions, corrections, and research […]
Robert Harington considers whether open and public access models, as they have emerged so far, are delivering us to a more inequitable publishing future as we rush towards openness.