Your Guide to Possibly/Probably Predatory Online Open-Access Journals

As regular readers of NursingWriting.com are well aware, in recent years the scholarly publishing landscape has become confused with online open-access journals whose publishers employ aggressive spam marketing and dubious peer review and publishing practices.

For centuries, traditional publishers have used a subscription business model: the cost of publishing and circulation a journal is subsidized by subscribers who have exclusive access to the material. The proliferation of the World-Wide Web and expanded wireless or WiFi bandwidth has introduced a new business model: open-access journals whose costs are subsidized by the authors who are published in it, not by readers. This business model introduces a conflict of interest: the journal needs to publish authors who pay the journal. Some online open-access journals appear to employ little or no reputable peer-review and some publish junk science. (It pays the bills!)

Assembled by members of the International Academy of Nurse Editors are a variety of resources to help you discern which online open-access journals are reliable.

A statement provided by the Academy’s Predatory Publishing Practices Collective http://naepub.com/predatory-publishing/2014-24-3-2/

A list of journal editorials published on the topic of standards for open-access publishing https://nursingeditors.com/inane-initiatives/open-access-editorial-standards/editorials-published-open-access-editorial-standards/

Articles in the online publication Nurse Author & Editor concerning predatory publishing http://naepub.com/category/predatory-publishing/

Librarian Jeffrey Beall’s “black list” of “possibly/probably predatory journals” https://scholarlyoa.com/

A “white list” of respected and credible nursing journals https://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/

 

Predatory Publishers Get Attention of Feds

We have reported here frequently in the past concerning the proliferation of predatory online open-access publishing operations, their use of email spam, and their adjunct conference operations. Frequently we’ve referred readers to Jeffrey Beall’s ScholarlyOA Web site.

Now in a new twist it’s gotten serious: the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has taken notice.

As reported in a recent InsideHigherEd article: “The Federal Trade Commission on Friday filed a complaint against the academic journal publisher OMICS Group and two of its subsidiaries, saying the publisher deceives scholars and misrepresents the editorial rigor of its journals.”

Details of the charges can be found here on the FTC Web site.

As recently as 2013 OMICS was threatening to sue Beall with a one billion dollar claim.

Poorly Written Spam from Predatory Journal

This spam solicitation in today’s email was so poorly written that I could not resist sharing it with readers of NursingWriting.com

Nxxx Pxxx and Cxxx journal asking you to send manuscript to publish under a single roof with Pxxx. You are free to gain the below features:

Express review process

Get processing confirmation (accept or reject by quality team) from Editorial Office within 24-48 hours when the time of submission

Review process within 3 weeks of time frame.

Article published instantly with Editor final acceptance.

Indexing
Cite Factor, Research Bib, SHERPA/ROMEO, ISI and more….

You can send an article by the reply to this email.

I strongly believe that I could have a submission from you within the deadline: July 15th 2016.

[Memo to Editor: I strongly believe that you could not have a submission from me . . . ever.]

 

 

Warning: Predatory Conference Organizers

If you thought it was difficult to assess whether or not a solicitation to submit a manuscript to an online open-access journal is legitimate, now comes the spawn of predatory journals: predatory conferences. To help us sort out the claims of conference participation solicitations, Jeffrey Beall’s ScholarlyOA web site provides a draft of criteria for identifying predatory conferences, written by James McCrostie, a full-time associate professor and part-time journalist in Japan who has written about such conferences.

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/23/proposed-criteria-for-identifying-predatory-conferences/

Beall’s 2016 List: Predatory Open-Access Publishers

Librarian Jeffrey Beall has posted his updated list of predatory online open-access publishers, now in a new format: http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

What Do Authors Want from Peer Review?

Author Services of Taylor & Francis has undertaken a study of researchers’ views and has published Peer Review in 2015: A Global View. Background here: http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/
Topics include: The purpose and benefits of peer review; peer review ethics; the mechanics of peer review; alternative models of peer review.

CFS: Advances in Nursing Science Special Topics Issues

Advances in Nursing Science calls for special topics issues

Our future issue topics:

http://journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/Pages/futuretopics.aspx

39:2 – Women & Girls Manuscript Due Date – October 15, 2015

39:3 – Palliative Care Manuscript Due Date – January 15, 2016

39:4 – Toxic Stress- December 2016 Manuscript Due Date – April 15, 2016

40:1 – ANS Retrospective – March 2017 Manuscript Due Date – July 15, 2016

ANS General Topic Submissions open any time