Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2017

Open Access 01-06-2017 | Scientific Contribution

The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics

Authors: Stefan Eriksson, Gert Helgesson

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing.
Footnotes
1
Some of the examples of questionable practices used in this article were first collected for an opinion piece by SE that was published in the Swedish journals Svensk Onkologi and Svensk Kirurgi in 2015. Permission for reuse of that material in this updated and heavily expanded paper has kindly been granted.
 
Literature
go back to reference Beall, Jeffrey, and James M. DuBois. 2016. Scholars beware Predatory publishers are increasingly targeting psychologists and other social scientists. Monitor on Psychology 47(4): 42. Beall, Jeffrey, and James M. DuBois. 2016. Scholars beware Predatory publishers are increasingly targeting psychologists and other social scientists. Monitor on Psychology 47(4): 42.
go back to reference Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154): 60–65.CrossRef Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154): 60–65.CrossRef
go back to reference Bohannon, John. 2014. Secret bundles of profit. Science 344(6190): 1332–1333.CrossRef Bohannon, John. 2014. Secret bundles of profit. Science 344(6190): 1332–1333.CrossRef
go back to reference Bowman, John D. 2014. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(10): 1–6.CrossRef Bowman, John D. 2014. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(10): 1–6.CrossRef
go back to reference Butler, Declan. 2013. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature 495(7442): 433–435.CrossRef Butler, Declan. 2013. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature 495(7442): 433–435.CrossRef
go back to reference Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Glenn Borchardt. 2016. Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 36. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw026. Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Glenn Borchardt. 2016. Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 36. doi:10.​1093/​asj/​sjw026.
go back to reference Graziotin, Daniel, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2014. A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems. Scientrometics 101: 1627–1656.CrossRef Graziotin, Daniel, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2014. A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems. Scientrometics 101: 1627–1656.CrossRef
go back to reference Gutierrez, Fredy R.S., Jeffrey Beall, and Diego A. Forero. 2015. Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays 37: 474–476.CrossRef Gutierrez, Fredy R.S., Jeffrey Beall, and Diego A. Forero. 2015. Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays 37: 474–476.CrossRef
go back to reference Haug, Charlotte J. 2015. Peer review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine 373: 2393–2395.CrossRef Haug, Charlotte J. 2015. Peer review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine 373: 2393–2395.CrossRef
go back to reference Hvistendahl, Mara. 2013. China’s publication bazaar. Science 342: 1035–1039.CrossRef Hvistendahl, Mara. 2013. China’s publication bazaar. Science 342: 1035–1039.CrossRef
go back to reference Lagoze, Carl, Paul Edwards, Christian Sandvig, and Jean-Christophe Plantin. 2015. Should I stay or should I go? Alternative infrastructures in scholarly publishing. International Journal of Communication 9: 1052–1071. Lagoze, Carl, Paul Edwards, Christian Sandvig, and Jean-Christophe Plantin. 2015. Should I stay or should I go? Alternative infrastructures in scholarly publishing. International Journal of Communication 9: 1052–1071.
go back to reference Schöpfel, Joachim. 2015. Open access—The rise and fall of a community-driven model of scientific communication. Learned Publishing 28: 321–325.CrossRef Schöpfel, Joachim. 2015. Open access—The rise and fall of a community-driven model of scientific communication. Learned Publishing 28: 321–325.CrossRef
go back to reference Shen, Cenyu, and Bo-Christer Björk. 2015. ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13: 230.CrossRef Shen, Cenyu, and Bo-Christer Björk. 2015. ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13: 230.CrossRef
go back to reference Sipka, Pero. 2012. Legitimacy of citations in predatory publishing: The case of proliferation of papers by Serbian authors in two Bosnian WoS-indexed journals. CEES Occasional Paper Series, No. 2012‐12‐2. Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science, Belgrade. Sipka, Pero. 2012. Legitimacy of citations in predatory publishing: The case of proliferation of papers by Serbian authors in two Bosnian WoS-indexed journals. CEES Occasional Paper Series, No. 2012‐12‐2. Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science, Belgrade.
go back to reference Tin, Lukić, Ivana Blešić, Biljana Basarin, Bibić Ljubica Ivanović, Dragan Milošević, and Dušan Sakulski. 2014. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers—A global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3): 69–81. Tin, Lukić, Ivana Blešić, Biljana Basarin, Bibić Ljubica Ivanović, Dragan Milošević, and Dušan Sakulski. 2014. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers—A global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3): 69–81.
go back to reference Truth, Frank. 2012. Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 10(2): 54–105. Truth, Frank. 2012. Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 10(2): 54–105.
go back to reference Xia, Jingfeng, Jennifer L. Harmon, Kevin G. Connolly, Ryan M. Donnelly, Mary R. Anderson, and Heather A. Howard. 2015. Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66: 1406–1417.CrossRef Xia, Jingfeng, Jennifer L. Harmon, Kevin G. Connolly, Ryan M. Donnelly, Mary R. Anderson, and Heather A. Howard. 2015. Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66: 1406–1417.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics
Authors
Stefan Eriksson
Gert Helgesson
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2017 Go to the issue

Book received

Books received