Anna-Sofia Ruth ATT - Open Science and Research Training University of Oulu Tämä teos on lisensoitu Creative Commons Nimeä 4.0 Kansainvälinen -käyttöluvalla. Tarkastele käyttölupaa osoitteessa “Predatory OA” and the Publication Forum classification

The basics Publication Forum (Julkaisufoorumi, JUFO) is a classification system to support the quality assessment of research output In this systems foreign and domestic scholarly publication channels are rated by 23 discipline-specific expert panels into three categories:  1 = basic level  2 = leading level  3 = highest level  Category 0 includes all publication channels that have been evaluated but do not meet one or several of the Level 1 criteria Currently, there are some active journals, series, conferences and book publishers in the Publication Forum database Open access journals are evaluated using the same criteria applicable to other publication series To support the evaluation, the panels have a number of different impact indicators and indexing data at their disposal

The controversial list of Mr. Beall One of these external sources of information is Beall’s List of "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers and journals“  List of publishers & List of standalone journals (also a list of Misleading Metrics)  Publishers and journals that collect APCs without following through careful peer- review or other duties of a scholarly publisher Often criticized but widely used nonetheless In the Publication Forum system a journal is marked as ”predatory” if its name OR its publisher’s name appears on Beall’s List  There are also some predatory publication channels classified as book publishers or conferences but most are journals Identification of the ”predatory” journals needs to be done manually which is laborious, and also, mistakes can happen (no ISSNs)

Characteristics of ”predatory” journals Similar or same title as well-known academic journals Fuzzy or very broad scope Rapid (non-existent?) peer-review process Lower APCs than other OA journals: about USD versus USD, according to Shen & Björk (BMC Medicine, 2015) Amateurish, busy websites, ads, low quality graphics Lack of information on editorial board members and/or editorial staff Excessive use of words like scientific, academic, research Massive spamming Some ”journals” have little or no published content Country of publication often India, Nigeria, Pakistan, or “international” – postal address might be in the US, Europe or Canada Misuse of logos and names of well-known databases Made-up metrics or ISSNs Note that some publishers utilize the Open Journal System – a commonly used open- source journal management and publishing system

Criticism from the scientific community 1.We should not use a blacklist based on one person’s opinion 2.The journal we claim to be ”predatory” is not on Beall’s List 3.We should not allow allegedly predatory publication channels to be accepted on Level 1 4.Multinational publishing houses that capitalize on research are hardly any better than ”predatory” publishers

Counterarguments 1. We should not use a blacklist based on one person’s opinion Beall cannot list journals or publishers without sound arguments because of the attention and criticism falling upon him Rewarding universities for articles that are not properly peer-reviewed is not in anyone’s interest – except for the publishers collecting the APCs ”Predatory” journals may prove especially harmful for young doctoral students seeking a forum for their dissertation articles 2. The journal we claim to be ”predatory” is not on Beall’s List Not every journal is listed separately on the List of standalone journals Publishers and journals can be removed as well as added

Counterarguments 3. We should not allow allegedly predatory publication channels to be accepted on Level 1 In the evaluation, Beall’s List has no more weight than any other indicator – the panels decide  “The panels need not award Level 1 to publication channels formally meeting the criteria if their factual quality or relevance is questionable.” … BUT…  Like, with all publishers, there is variation between the quality of journals 4. Multinational publishing houses that capitalize on research are hardly any better than ”predatory” publishers  Morally, maybe not, but do you want to oppose them at the expense of the credibility, dissemination and long-term archiving of your research results?  There are numerous perfectly good journals in the world (including OA journals). Why risk publishing in a dubious one?

Figures Currently, 721 ”predatory” publication channels in Publication Forum database  Of these about 10 % on level 1  Not nearly all journals on Beall’s List have been evaluated by the panels, but more turn up all the time Last year “predatory” publication channels on Level 1 were reassessed, and 80 % of them dropped to Level 0 Only 1,6 % of the articles (A1-A2) authored by Finnish researchers between were published in "predatory" journals But then, of the 580 new journals identified from the publication data collection of 2015 as much as 12 % on Beall’s List DOAJ & Beall's List overlap is 30 journals of which 29 are published by one single publisher

Amount of A1 & A2 articles Source: MinEdu publication data / CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd. Year of publicationNot ”predatory””Predatory” ”Predatory”, Level 0 ”Predatory”, Level 1Total Total

Publishing trends

Blacklists, whitelists, no lists? How to avoid ”predators”? Utilize and compare different lists side by side:  Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)  DOAJ  Beall’s List  WoS  Quality Open Access Market (QOAM) etc. No list is perfect or completely up to date  Go ”to the roots” and sample a few articles (if you can find any!) – do you buy it? If you notice an unmarked predatory journal on our register or have first hand experience of a suspicious publisher, you can give us a hint using  There are other unreliable publishers besides those listed by Beall

For further information