How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals

1. Elliott C. On predatory publishers: a Q&A With Jeffrey Beall. The chronicle of higher education. 2012 [Internet]. Available from: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/on-predatory-publishers-a-qa-with-jeffrey-beall/47667Search in Google Scholar

2. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/page/4/Search in Google Scholar

3. Jallalian M. Academic Journalism, Publication Ethics. Hijacked Journals. Available from: http://www.mehrdadjalalian.com/index.php/updates-of-hijacked-journalsSearch in Google Scholar

4. Beall J. “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers. Charleston Advisor. 2010 (April): 10–7.10.5260/chara.12.1.50Search in Google Scholar

5. Lukic T, Blesic I, Basarin B, Ivanovic Bibic L, Milosevic D, Dusan S. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers-a global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geogr Pannonica. 2014; 18(3): 69–81.10.5937/GeoPan1403069LSearch in Google Scholar

6. Council of Science Editors. CSE is a dynamic community of editorial professionals dedicated to the responsible and effective communication of science. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/Search in Google Scholar

7. STM. The Global Voice of Scholarly Publishing. Code of Conduct [Internet]. Available from: http://www.stm-assoc.org/membership/code-of-conduct/Search in Google Scholar

8. Committee of Publication Ethics. Promoting integrity in research publication [Internet]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/Search in Google Scholar

9. Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med [Internet]. 2014; 107(10): 384–5. Available from: http://jrs.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/014107681454852610.1177/0141076814548526420663925271271Search in Google Scholar

10. Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014; 78(10): 1–6.10.5688/ajpe7810176431519825657363Search in Google Scholar

11. Butler D. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature [Internet]. 2013; 495(7442): 433–5. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.1266610.1038/495433a23538810Search in Google Scholar

12. Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers [Internet]. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/Search in Google Scholar

13. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers [Internet]. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

14. Scholarly Open Access. A Medical Publisher with Some Problems [Internet]. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/12/26/a-medical-publisher-with-some-problems/Search in Google Scholar

15. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ [Internet]. 2015; 350: h210. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25596387\nhttp://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.h21010.1136/bmj.h21025596387Search in Google Scholar

16. Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol [Internet]. 2015; 66(7): 1406–17. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265Search in Google Scholar

17. Kearney MH, Thorne S, Chinn PL, Nicoll LH, Pickler R, D’Antonio P, et al. Predatory publishing: What authors need to know. Res Nurs Heal. 2015; 38(1): 1–3.10.1002/nur.2164025545343Search in Google Scholar

18. Scholarly Open Access. List of Standalone Journals. Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals [Internet]. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/Search in Google Scholar

19. American Journal of Advances in Medical Science [Internet]. Available from: http://www.arnaca.fopras.org/Search in Google Scholar

20. Jalalian M, Mahboobi H. Hijacked journals and predatory publishers: Is there a need to re-think how to assess the quality of academic research? Walailak J Sci Technol. 2014; 11(5): 389–94.Search in Google Scholar

21. Landes Museum Kärnten. Wulfenia [Internet]. Available from: http://www.landesmuseum.ktn.gv.at/210226w_DE.htm?seite=15Search in Google Scholar

22. Scholarly Open Access. Hijacked Journals [Internet]. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/Search in Google Scholar

23. Jalalian M, Dadhkah M. The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geogr Pannonica. 2015; 19(2): 73–87.10.5937/GeoPan1502073JSearch in Google Scholar

24. Jalalian M. Academic Journalism, Publication Ethics. Hijacked journal list 2014, first edition, June 2014 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mehrdadjalalian.com/index.php/list-of-hijacked-journals-and-fake-publishers/30-hiajcked-journal-list-2014-first-edition-june-2014Search in Google Scholar

25. The Institutions of Engeneering and Technology. Journal hijackers target science and open access [Internet]. Available from: https://www.researchinformation.info/news/analysis-opinion/journal-hijackers-target-science-and-open-access?news_id=1660Search in Google Scholar

26. Dadkhah M, Stefanutti C. Hijacked journals are emerging as a challenge for scholarly publishing. Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej. Poland; 2015. p. 783–4.10.20452/pamw.3125Search in Google Scholar

27. Beall J. Medical Publishing Triage – Chronicling Predatory Open Access Publishers. Ann Med Surg. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013; 2(2): 47–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9Search in Google Scholar

28. Dadkhah M, Bianciardi G. Ranking Predatory Journals: Solve the Problem Instead of Removing It! Tabriz Univ Med Sci. [Internet]. 2016; 6(x): 1–4. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/apb.2016.001Search in Google Scholar

29. Wehrmeijer M. Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals [Master Thesis] [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/28943/MA-thesis_Wehrmeijer_PredatoryJournals.pdf?sequence=1Search in Google Scholar

30. Dadkhah M, Obeidat MM, Jazi MD. How Can We Identify Hijacked Journals? Bull Electr Eng Informatics. 2015; 4(2): 83–7.10.11591/eei.v4i2.449Search in Google Scholar

31. Jalalian M. A second chance for authors of hijacked journals to publish in legitimate journals. Electron Physician. 2015; 7(2): 1017–8.Search in Google Scholar

32. Jalalian M. Hijacked journals are attacking the reliability and validity of medical research. Electron Physician. 2014; 6(4): 925–6.Search in Google Scholar

33. Dadkhah M, Borchardt G. Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing. Aesthet Surg J. 2016; 36(6): 739–41.10.1093/asj/sjw02626906349Search in Google Scholar

34. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature [Internet]. 2012; 489: 179. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.1138510.1038/489179a22972258Search in Google Scholar

35. McNaught K. The Changing Publication Practices in Academia: Inherent Uses and Issues in Open Access and Online Publishing and the Rise of Fraudulent Publications. J Electron Publ. 2015; 18(3). Available from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0018.308?view=text;rgn=main10.3998/3336451.0018.308Search in Google Scholar

36. Willinsky J. Open access and academic reputation. Ann Libr Inf Stud. [Internet]. 2010; 57(September): 296–302. Available from: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/10242Search in Google Scholar

37. Beall J. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing. 2013. p. 79–84.10.1087/20130203Search in Google Scholar

38. World Association of Medical Editors. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing [Internet]. Available from: http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practiceSearch in Google Scholar

39. Bohannon J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science (80- ) [Internet]. 2013; 342(6154): 60–5. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.pdf+html10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_6024092725Search in Google Scholar

40. Crawford W. Ethics and access 1: Тhe sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights. 2014; 14(4): 1–14.Search in Google Scholar

41. Crawford W. Journals, “Journals”and Wannabes: Investigating the List. Cites & Insights. 2015; 14(7): 1–45.Search in Google Scholar

42. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. [Internet]. 2015; 76(3): 132–5. Available from: http://crln.acrl.org/content/76/3/132.short10.5860/crln.76.3.9277Search in Google Scholar

43. Haug C. The Downside of Open-Access Publishing. N Engl J Med. [Internet]. 2013; 368: 791–3. Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMp121475010.1056/NEJMp121475023445091Search in Google Scholar

44. Academic Research Publishing Agency. Int Res Rev Appl Sci. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.arpapress.com/Search in Google Scholar

45. McKerlich R, Ives C, McGreal R. Measuring use and creation of open educational resources in higher education. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn. 2013; 14(4): 90–103.10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1573Search in Google Scholar

46. Shen C, Björk B-C. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med [Internet]. BMC Medicine. 2015; 13(1): 230. Available from: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-210.1186/s12916-015-0469-2458991426423063Search in Google Scholar

47. Macedonian Association of Medical Editors. Ethics. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mame.mk/wordpress/etika-2/Search in Google Scholar