KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Legitimate open access and predatory journals are being conflated by some established actors, attempting to preserve legacy publishing.
• Understanding how to identify a true predatory journal is essential to maintaining scientific integrity.

With the rise in open access publishing, the presence of predatory journals has become a notable issue. However, in a Research Information article, Professor Emmanuel Andrès addresses labelling of legitimate open access journals as predatory by some in the publishing ecosystem.

Many accused journals have robust editorial standards and are indexed in respected databases like PubMed and DOAJ. So, why are they regarded as predatory? Prof. Andrès describes how some established actors have weaponised the term ‘predatory’ to exclude newcomers and protect the monopoly of legacy journals.

Open access versus exclusivity

Open access publishing can be affordable, accessible, and quick, enabling a broader range of individuals to publish, including those:

• new to research
• from non-elite universities or under-funded institutions
• from under-represented regions.

Historically, only a select few had the means to publish, largely due to the costs associated with legacy journals. Some may consider open access to result in a loss of publishing prestige. Prof. Andrès highlights that some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a “convenient label” to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity. On the contrary, Prof. Andrès says questioning the legitimacy of “all open access, fast-review, digitally native journals…is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford”.

“Some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a ‘convenient label’ to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity”

Where can we draw the line?

Prof. Andrès notes that true predatory journals remain a significant threat to academic publishing. To help detect them, Prof. Andrès highlights 6 key characteristics to look out for:

• no transparent fee structure
• no visible or citable articles that can be corrected when necessary
• no clear peer review and editorial policies
• not indexed in recognised databases
• not a member of COPE
• not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit checklist.

While ‘predatory’ warns the research community of fraudulent journals, terming any journal that challenges traditional publishing  as such can be just as damaging. Before dismissing an open access journal branded as predatory, Prof. Andrès urges us to consider: is this truly fraudulent or is it just an outsider?

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent analysis revealed ~20,000 scientific authors publishing impossibly high numbers of articles.
• High-volume publishing in the pursuit of inflated metrics represents a threat to research integrity.

We have reported previously on the rising numbers of highly prolific scientific authors. Dalmeet Singh Chawla recently highlighted this issue in Chemical & Engineering News, discussing findings that ~20,000 scientists from Stanford’s top 2% list publish an “implausibly high” number of papers. Singh Chawla explored the implications of high-volume publishing on research integrity, as well as potential solutions.

Study findings

The study, published in Accountability in Research, examined the publication patterns of ~200,000 researchers spanning 22 distinct disciplines, from Stanford University’s list of top 2% scientists (based on citation metrics). It found that:

• around 10% (20,000 scientists) produced an impossibly high volume of publications
• some scientists published hundreds of studies per year, with hundreds or even thousands of new co-authors
• approximately 1,000 were early-career scientists with ≤10 years’ academic experience.

Impact on research integrity

Analysis authors, Simone Pilia and Peter Mora, blame the surprising number of hyperprolific authors on a culture that rewards publication quantity through high scores on metrics. They suggest that this not only compromises research quality but leads to some scientists, “particularly the younger ones”, feeling pressured. Pilia and Mora linked the incentive to churn out large quantities of publications with “unethical practices” such as the inclusion of co-authors who have not made adequate contributions to the research. Based on their findings, Pilia and Mora warn that normalising high-volume publishing poses a significant threat to the fundamental academic process.

“Normalising high-volume publishing poses a significant threat to the fundamental academic process.”

A divisive solution?

Pilia and Mora propose adjusting metrics for scientists exceeding publication and co-authorship thresholds. However, according to Singh Chawla, information scientist Ludo Waltman fears that such adjustments would make research evaluation too complex and confusing. He proposes that research assessment should focus less on metrics and more on a wider range of research activities.

The reliability of metrics for research evaluation is an ongoing topic of discussion within the scientific community, and this latest research serves as a reminder for authors to keep research integrity at the heart of their publication decisions.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• North America, Europe, and Oceania are global leaders for the output of high-quality AI-powered life science research.
• International collaboration may be key to unlocking AI’s full potential.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in life science research is rising exponentially, from aiding drug development to assisting in the publication process. However, geographical imbalances in AI use could lead to biased models and implications for medical care.

Geographical variation

In an article for Nature Communications, Dr Leo Schmallenbach and colleagues evaluated the geographical spread of AI-related life science research. Their analysis revealed geographical differences in the quantity, quality, and relevance of AI-related life science research. 

• Quantity: The USA and China published the largest share of research, while countries in Africa and Latin America lagged behind. In 2020, China surpassed the USA to lead the world in the number of AI-related life science publications per year, making Asia the continent with the largest cumulative output.
• Quality: Northern America, Europe, and Oceania had a greater proportion of research published in high-ranking journals than Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
• Relevance: Publications from Oceania, Europe, and Northern America were more frequently cited in life science and clinical research articles than those from Asia.

“Analysis revealed geographical differences in the quantity, quality, and relevance of AI-related life science research.”

International collaboration is key to success

The authors also compared research stemming from national versus international collaborations, with international collaborations defined as articles with authorship across 2 or more countries. International research collaborations were 35% more likely to be published in high-ranking journals and received 21% more citations in life science articles.

Speaking to Global Health Otherwise, Dr Schmallenbach concluded that “international collaboration is critical to unlocking the full potential of AI in healthcare” and called for policies encouraging more international partnerships.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Current academic metrics can be manipulated, leading to unethical practices, such as self-citation and citation cartels.
• The addition of clinical guidelines and Bluesky tracking to the Altmetric Attention Score could help drive a cultural shift toward recognising genuine forms of research impact.

A recent article by Dan K Pearson on the London School of Economics’ Impact of Social Sciences blog sheds light on the growing concern over the gamification of academic metrics. Pearson highlights how the pressure to publish in high-impact journals has led to unethical practices, such as excessive self-citation, citation cartels, and even the emergence of a citation black market where researchers can purchase citations to boost their profiles.

The pressure to publish creates an environment where researchers focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work.

This environment encourages researchers to focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work. Pearson argues that this system not only undermines the integrity of academic research but also discourages public engagement and collaboration. He suggests a cultural shift is needed whereby impact-oriented activities, such as public outreach, are emphasised over citation counts.

Two recent developments to the Altmetric platform could address this need by better reflecting the real-world applications of scholarly work. As reported by Research Information, Altmetric now tracks citations in clinical guidelines, providing insights into how research informs clinical practice and patient care. This addition allows researchers and institutions to assess the practical applications of medical research, thereby informing funding decisions and publication strategies.

Altmetric has also expanded its tracking to incorporate Bluesky, a social media platform favoured by the research community. This inclusion offers a more comprehensive view of research conversations, helping to understand the broader engagement and influence of research.

By embracing these developments and promoting wider recognition of scholarly contributions, the academic community can move beyond the pitfalls of gamified metrics and toward a more authentic assessment of research impact.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Research integrity concerns are growing, with over 10,000 article retractions recorded in 2023.
• Publishers are investing in tools, training, and investigations to combat misconduct, but collaboration across stakeholders is vital to uphold ethical research practices.

The rise in research integrity concerns is shaping the role of journal publishers, as detailed in a recent Insights article by Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity at Taylor & Francis. With over 10,000 article retractions recorded in 2023, the issue of academic misconduct is growing, prompting publishers to implement stronger safeguards and investigative processes. However, ensuring research integrity is a shared responsibility, requiring active involvement from institutions, funders, and researchers alike.

The evolving challenge of research integrity

The prevalence of cases of misconduct – ranging from unintentional errors to deliberate fraud – has led to the increase in retractions. Among the many challenges publishers face are paper mills, citation manipulation, and AI-generated fraudulent content. However, these represent just a fraction of the evolving unethical practices that threaten academic integrity. As the publishing landscape changes, so too do the methods of bad actors who continuously adapt to bypass safeguards, making it essential for publishers to remain vigilant and responsive to new threats.

Shared responsibility in addressing unethical practices

While publishers are making significant investments in internal processes, training, and investigative teams to detect and address misconduct, there is also a critical need for greater awareness among consumers of scholarly content. Understanding the different types of post-publication notices, such as corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern, is essential for interpreting research validity and credibility.

Understanding the different types of post-publication notices, such as corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern, is essential for interpreting research validity and credibility.

Educating researchers, institutions, and the wider academic community about these notices will help ensure that retracted or questionable research is not inadvertently cited or relied upon in future work. Alam acknowledges initiatives such as United2Act and STM Integrity Hub that are aiming to create industry-wide solutions to prevent fraudulent research from being published in the first place.

As scholarly publishing evolves, the focus on ethics and transparency continues to grow. By strengthening detection mechanisms, enforcing ethical guidelines, and fostering a shared responsibility for ethical publication practices, we can collectively safeguard the credibility of academic research.

After reading the article, click here for a brief survey and to receive your authorization code for your Credit Tracker. This serves as documentation for the activity.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A survey of scholarly publications demonstrates approximately one-third have encountered fraudulent submissions.
• Over half of these journals have dedicated staff to uphold research ethics.

A recent article published by Research Information highlights the findings of KGL Consulting’s 2024 Editorial Compensation Benchmark Study, shedding light on critical issues within academic publishing. The survey of 213 journals revealed that close to one-third have encountered fraudulent submissions, underscoring the pressing need for robust research integrity measures.

In response to these challenges, more than half of the surveyed journals have implemented dedicated roles focused on safeguarding research ethics. This proactive approach aims to detect and prevent unethical practices, ensuring the credibility of scholarly publications.

More than half of the surveyed journals have implemented dedicated roles focused on safeguarding research ethics.

The research also uncovered a significant gender disparity in editorial leadership positions, with women constituting only 30% of editors-in-chief, highlighting the ongoing underrepresentation of women in senior editorial roles. However, there was no indication of pay inequity by gender in these roles, suggesting that while representation is lacking, compensation remains equitable.

The study’s publishers hope the analysis will support journals in making informed decisions that promote accountability and equity in the academic publishing industry.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Free-to-publish, free-to-read diamond OA may improve equity in publication opportunities, but uptake may be held back as authors are attracted to non-diamond journals with an established reputation.
• Questions remain around whether diamond OA will reduce the costs of publishing overall.

Open access (OA) is key to making research more accessible, with gold OA ever-growing: it accounted for 42% of Web of Science-indexed publications in 2023. In a recent article in Research Professional News, published by Clarivate, Ulrich Herb and Benedikt Schmal highlight that gold OA is no stranger to scrutiny. Article processing charges (APCs) can pose equity issues, and transformative agreements have not shifted the OA landscape as hoped. Diamond OA, providing both free-to-publish and free-to-read articles, has been hailed as a solution by funders, libraries, and OA advocates; however, it may not provide a complete fix.

Money, money, money

Herb and Schmal debate whether, on balance, diamond OA will lower the costs of publishing compared with the current landscape. They note that journals have many costs, including:

• managing peer review, editing, and quality control
• operational infrastructure
• indexing and archiving
• training and capacity building
• marketing and outreach.

Despite this long list, Herb and Schmal suggest that many assume large commercial publishers and non-profit outfits have the same costs. Think again. Diamond OA publishers are unlikely to replicate economies of scale at larger publishers, so face higher costs. By their nature, non-profit publishers also lack motivations to reduce costs to widen profit margins.

Is reputation everything?

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity. With reputation often a key factor in journal selection, the authors question whether there is sufficient appetite for new diamond OA journals: these would need to compete with established rivals to build their reputation and gain broader appeal.

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity.

Herb and Schmal push for a pragmatic assessment of diamond OA models to establish their viability and sustainability – or note that OA advocates once again risk disappointment.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Hijacked journals imitate legitimate publications, misleading researchers into paying for non-peer-reviewed work.
• To combat hijacking, publishers should secure their websites and regularly check the accuracy of online listings. Researchers can use tools like Think Check Submit and Retraction Watch’s Hijacked Journal Checker to confirm journal authenticity.

Journal hijacking, in which fraudulent websites impersonate legitimate journals, is an ongoing threat to academic publishing. Hijacked journals deceive researchers into paying fees to publish work that is not peer reviewed, risking reputational damage for both the researcher and the legitimate journal that has been targeted. But what, if anything, can be done? A recent Nature Index article by Jackson Ryan delved into the issues.

The scale of the problem

Economist Anna Abalkina has tracked more than 250 hijacking cases for Retraction Watch over the past 4 years. The tactics used by hijackers include:

• taking over expired domain names to create fake journal websites
• using fake URLs that closely mimic legitimate journals
• creating a website to steal the identity of a journal that lacks an online presence.

Victims across academic publishing

Ryan describes the impact of hijacking on researchers and publishers alike. While duped researchers can see their academic reputation and careers damaged, publishers that fall victim to hijacking can be forced to expend large amounts of time trying to correct the record. The journal International Development Planning Review (IDPR) was hijacked in late 2023. Despite the publisher’s efforts to have the fake site delisted by Google, it remained in top search results for months. In another case, the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems was hijacked by hackers altering its URL on Scopus. By the time the URL was corrected, hundreds of fake articles had been published under the journal’s name. A common theme among affected publishers is frustration with slow responses from tech companies and online platforms.

A common theme among affected publishers is frustration with slow responses from tech companies and online platforms.

What can we do?

Ryan outlines the debate among experts as to whether much can be done to prevent journal hijacking. Dr Dan Hammett, co-editor of IDPR, is sceptical that it can ever be avoided. However, he and others believe that implementing stronger security measures could significantly reduce the risk.  Publishers are urged to strengthen website security, register alternative domains themselves to prevent hijackers from exploiting them, and regularly check journal listings on search engines and platforms such as Scopus. Meanwhile, researchers are encouraged to use tools like Think Check Submit and The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker to confirm journal authenticity.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The increasing use of AI tools in academic publishing calls for policies that keep pace with the myriad ways that authors and researchers use AI.
• An AI risk register that looks at specific risks inherent in individual tools and the ways they are used, plus collaboration among publishers to create standardised guidance, could be the key.

Protecting the integrity of the scientific record becomes more challenging as the role of AI in academic publishing expands. In a recent article for The Scholarly Kitchen, Avi Staiman expresses his concerns about the lack of adequate publisher policies on AI use and sets out  what publishers could do to step up their game.

Where do current policies come up short?

Staiman reports that while authors are eager to implement AI, most lack the expertise to navigate its full potential while protecting research integrity. For instance, Oxford University Press (OUP) reported that 76% of researchers use AI in their research, but 72% are also unaware of their institution’s policies on AI.

76% of researchers use AI in their research, but 72% are also unaware of their institution’s policies on AI.

Alongside this, publishers’ struggles to keep up to date with the latest developments in AI hamper the development of suitable guidelines. Limitations of current policies include:

• lack of clarity on the roles of authors versus AI in individual cases (for example, who created the content vs who refined it)
• failure to consider the wide range of available AI tools and their differing uses (substantive vs non-substantive AI use)
• oversimplified AI policies that equate to blanket disclosure statements on the use of AI only, rather than looking at what was used and how.

Staiman argues that, given the diversity of AI tools that now exist — from those capable of performing statistical analysis, such as JuliusAI, to those assisting with literature searches, like Scite — the ways in which we tackle transparency and regulation need to evolve.

How can publisher AI policies keep pace with AI technology?

To this end, and inspired by the EU AI Act, Staiman suggests formulating an ‘AI risk register’ that assigns  AI tools a level of regulation that matches both the potential risk inherent in that tool and the way it is being used in research. He also recommends 8 practical actions for publishers:

1. Develop standardised guidelines
2. Update guidelines continuously
3. Establish transparent and inclusive governance
4. Boost learning on AI within individual organisations
5. Assign different risk levels to AI tools
6. Classify AI tools based on the type of use level of verification required
7. Define clear roles for authors and AI
8. Consider how to monitor and enforce AI policies

Staiman calls upon publishers to rapidly collaborate so that AI policies can keep pace with the fast-moving changes in AI technology.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Retractions should be seen as neutral corrections made to preserve the integrity of academic work, rather than punitive actions.
• Consistent communication and transparency throughout the retraction process are key to maintaining trust within academic publishing.

Retractions in academic publishing have long been viewed as a mark of shame, often associated with misconduct. However, this perception can in itself be detrimental to the integrity of the scientific record. As Tim Kersjes argues in an LSE Impact Blog, in order for research to be self-correcting it might be time to shift the narrative and start to view retractions as ‘neutral tools’.

Remove the stigma

Kersjes outlines how the stigmatisation of retractions deters authors from retracting their work, even when errors are discovered. Viewing retractions as a routine part of the scientific process could encourage more authors and editors to retract flawed work, ensuring that the published record remains reliable. While past suggestions have included systems that categorise retractions based on the reasons behind them, Karsjes cautions against this, questioning whether these approaches really remove stigma or have the unintended consequence of increasing it.

Standardise reporting

Meanwhile, The Scholarly Kitchen reported on relevant new guidance by the National Information Standards Organisation (NISO). The Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice emphasises consistency and transparency in the way that retractions are communicated, rather than focusing on the reason for retraction. In particular, it recommends:

• consistent terminology, including naming protocols
• retraction status to be clearly indicated in the title of the article
• use of watermarks and labels on landing pages
• clear responsibilities regarding handling of associated metadata.

The way forward

It is crucial for all stakeholders—authors, editors, and publishers—to embrace retractions as correction tools and for retractions to be communicated clearly and consistently. In doing so, we can foster a culture whereby the integrity of published research is prioritised above all else.

————————————————–