52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global Science Books: A Tale from the Cuckoo’s Nest. How Predatory Open Access Publishing Can Influence the Metrics of a Traditional Scholarly Publisher

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherDOAJ
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Based on the July, 2013 list published at scholarlyoa.com by Jeffrey Beall, the number of references by “predatory” open access (POA) journals or publishers was quantified in Global Science Books (GSB) journals. This is the first such ever attempt by any publisher or journal to complete such an analysis. Over an approximately 6-month period, a total of 189,904 references were examined in the reference lists of 2928 manuscripts published in any journal (extant or extinct, 31 in total) over a 7-year period (January 2007 to July 2013). The objective was to assess how unscholarly or predatory publishing can impact and/or influence another publisher and how the reference lists of the surrogate publisher can be used as an unsuspecting instrument (a surrogate deposit, the cuckoo’s nest) to spread and validate POA publishers and their journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.

              Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry
                Hungarian Communication Studies Association
                01 December 2014
                : 2
                : 2
                : 73-81
                Article
                b109a1d60ed04033932512f3ca57a1f0
                9c77c0a1-551e-401d-a22b-e0b7bbb75c3f

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                Communication. Mass media
                P87-96
                Philology. Linguistics
                P1-1091
                Language and Literature
                P

                Political & Social philosophy,General social science,Theoretical frameworks and disciplines,Communication & Media studies
                Global Science Books; open access; predatory publishing,open access,predatory publishing,blogs,Global Science Books

                Comments

                Comment on this article