Résumés
Abstract
This commentary critically presents and discusses some of the information-literacy and pedagogical principles underlying the development of ‘Compass to Publish’, a free online tool which helps users determine the possible predatory nature of open access journals requiring or hiding article processing charges (APCs). It then moves on to discuss the limits of the tool in terms of scalability possibilities based on user feedback. Finally, the commentary shares critical observations regarding the difficulties for future developments of the tool as they can relate to compromised research practices such as paper mill activity, authorship for sale, or fake peer review.
Keywords:
- predatory publishing,
- predatory journals,
- information literacy,
- scalability,
- paper mills,
- research ethics,
- research integrity
Résumé
Ce commentaire présente et discute de manière critique certains des principes de littératie informationnelle et de pédagogie sous-jacents au développement de Compass to Publish, un outil en ligne gratuit qui aide les utilisateurs à déterminer la nature potentiellement prédatrice des revues en libre accès exigeant ou cachant des frais de traitement des articles (APC). Il aborde ensuite les limites de l'outil en termes de possibilités d'expansion basées sur les retours des utilisateurs. Enfin, le commentaire partage des observations critiques concernant les défis pour le développement futur de l'outil, en lien avec de nouvelles formes de pratiques prédatrices telles que les usines à papiers et autres indicateurs de recherche compromise.
Mots-clés :
- Revues prédatrices,
- Littératie informationnelle,
- extensibilité,
- intégrité en recherche,
- éthique de la recherche,
- moulins à papier
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Abalkina, A. (2021). Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics,126(8), 7123–7148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0
- Akça, S, & Akbulut, M. (2021). Are predatory journals contaminating science? An analysis of the Cabells’ Predatory Report. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 102366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102366
- Anderson, R. (2015, May 11). Should we retire the term ‘predatory publishing’? The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-we-retire-the-term-predatory-publishing/
- Beall, J. (2010). ‘Predatory’ open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17.
- Becerril, A., Bosman, J., Bjørnshauge, L., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., Mounier, P., Proudman, V., Redhead, C., & Torny, D. (2021). OA diamond journals study. Part 2: Recommendations. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4562790
- Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–35. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
- Besançon, L., Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2024). Sneaked references: Fabricated reference meta data distort citation counts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(12), 1368–1379. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24896
- Brundy, C., & Thornton, J. B. (2024). The paper mill crisis is a five-alarm fire for science: What can librarians do about it? Insights, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.659
- Buitrago Ciro, J., & Hernández Pérez, J. (2024). Pedagogical strategy for scholarly communication literacy and avoiding deceptive publishing practices. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 56(4), 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231187686
- Byrne, J. A., Abalkina, A., Akinduro-Aje, O., Christopher, J., Eaton, S. E., Joshi, N., Scheffler, U, Wise, N. H., & Wright, J. (2024). A call for research to address the threat of paper mills. PLOS Biology, 22(11), e3002931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002931
- Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of Critical Issues Affecting Established Journals. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
- Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., &Magazinov, A.(2022). The ‘problematic paper screener’ automatically selects suspect publications for post-publication (re)assessment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04895
- Candal-Pedreira, C., Ross, J. S., Ruano-Ravina, A., Egilman, D. S., Fernández, E., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2022). Retracted papers originating from paper mills: Cross sectional study. BMJ, 397(November), e071517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
- Chandra, A., & Dasgupta, S. (2024). Predatory Journals: What the researchers and authors should know. The American Journal of Medicine, 137(6), 470–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.02.015
- COPE, Council. (2019). COPE discussion document: Citation manipulation. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.1
- COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, & WAME. (2014). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12
- Dony, C., Raskinet, M., Renaville, F., Simon S., & Thirion, P. (2020). How reliable and useful is Cabell’s blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly, 30(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339
- Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
- Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. 2018. Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals.’ Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1135
- Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0187394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394
- Hanson, M. A., Gómez Barreiro, P., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 823-843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
- Kakamad, F. H., Abdalla, B. A., Abdullah, H. O., Omar, S. S., Mohammed, S. H., Ahmed, S. M., Mohammed, K. K., et al. (2024). Lists of predatory journals and publishers: A review for future refinement. European Science Editing, 50(May), e118119. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e118119
- Khabour, O. F., Alzoubi, K. H., & Aldarabseh, W. M. (2024). Awareness of Jordanian researchers about predatory journals: A need for training. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(6), 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00519-8
- Kincaid, E. (2023, December 19). Hindawi reveals process for retracting more than 8,000 paper mill articles. Retraction Watch (blog). https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/19/hindawi-revealsprocess-for-retracting-more-than-8000-paper-millarticles/
- Kratochvíl, J., Plch, L., Sebera, M., & Koriťáková, E. (2020). Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view. Learned Publishing, 33(3), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299
- Martel, E., Lentschat, M., & Labbé, C. (2024). Detection of tortured phrases in scientific literature. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03370
- O´Rorke, R., White, C., & Bhujel, N. (2024). The rise of predatory publishing and journals. British Dental Journal, 237(9), 699–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-024-8006-3
- Olivarez, J. D., Bales, S., Sare, L., & vanDuinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: Applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52
- Porter, S. J., & McIntosh, L. D. (2024). Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.04022
- Severin, A., Low, N. (2019). Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases. International Journal of Public Health, 64(8), 1123–1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-019-01284-3
- Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1386–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24339
- Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-Sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00411-19
- Swauger, S. (2017). Open access, power, and privilege: A response to ‘What I learned from predatory publishing.’ College & Research Libraries News, 78(11), 603. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dunleavy, D. J., Moradzadeh, M., Eykens, J. (2021). A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8589–8616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Nazarovets, S., Daly, T., & Kendall, G. (2024). The Chinese early warning journal list: Strengths, weaknesses and dilutions in the light of China’s global scientific rise. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(4), 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102898
- Toutloff, L. (2019, March20). The Source/Cabells predatory reports criteria v 1.1. The Source. https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/20/predatoryreport-criteria-v1-1/
- Tsigaris, P., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Why blacklists are not reliable: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 102266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102266
- Ungerfeld, R. (2024). Publish or perish: The trap of predatory and illegitimate journals. Agrociencia Uruguay, 28, e1612. https://doi.org/10.31285/AGRO.28.1612
- Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479–481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ d41586-023-03974-8
- Walsh, A.(2018). The Librarians’ Book on Teaching through Games and Play. Tallinn, Harju Makond, Estonia Lepton, Huddersfield, UK: Innovative Libraries.
- Wilson, N. (2024). Predatory journals. BioScience, 74(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad104