Category: Scholarly Publishing

The Ongoing Problem of Predatory Journals

Citation contamination amplifies the dangers of predatory journals.

In late September, the number of predatory journals on the Journal Blacklist surpassed 12,000. For context, the number of journals on the list has tripled since the list was established in 2017.

While issues of integrity, ethics, and tenure bubble to the surface in any discussion of predatory journals, it’s important to remember the potential practical impacts. That is, the potential for harm when the outcomes of a flawed study spread into the clinical, research, and policy arenas.

This danger arises not only through the initial publication of the article (which may have low initial visibility due to the lack of quality of the journal), but via references to these studies in the legitimate scientific literature, “citation contamination.” In the same way ill-gotten profits can be spent in the open after being passed through legitimate businesses, these articles gain legitimacy by being cited in established publications and databases. These associations enable the dissemination of these studies far beyond the level offered by their initial publication in the sub-standard journal.

The Scholarly Kitchen published the findings of a study to determine the impact of citation contamination and found that, while the percentage of contaminated citations is relatively few, the sheer volume of output by the predatory journals makes that percentage significant. The author indicates that 36% of one predatory journal’s articles had been cited in the legitimate literature.

What should researchers/editors/writers do?

  1. Understand the threat predatory journals present to your research and your reputation. At the end of July, AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP* released a joint position statement on predatory publishing and its “threat both to researchers publishing the results of their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.” You can read the full statement in Current Medical Research and Opinion here.
    *AMWA – American Medical Writers Association
    EMWA – European Medical Writers Association
    ISMPP – International Society for Medical Publication Professionals
  2. Proactively research a journal before submitting your research for publication. Unfortunately, journals are bought and sold, so don’t assume a journal you found legitimate last year still meets your standards this year. Do a little research before subsequent submissions to rule out big changes.
  3. Closely review any published research you consult for development of your own research and publications. Eschew the use of research published in predatory journals.

If you mentor researchers, editors, or writers who are new to the field, you occupy a key position in the fight against predatory publishers. That’s not to imply that professionals at any point in their career are immune to the problem of predatory journals (and conferences). But it is to say that the ease with which one can garner a first publication via one of these journals can obscure the decision-making process of a new professional without specific knowledge about the peer-review and publishing processes. By educating your new colleagues about these processes and the threats posed by predatory forces in these industries, you safeguard not just a reputation or a career, but also the integrity of research, public policy, and clinical practice.

 

The Chronic Problem of Predatory Journals

Predatory publishing is a threat to researchers publishing the results of their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.

I’ve blogged about the topic of predatory journals before, and not much has changed. But as a grant writer/editor/applicant, the more you know the better you can navigate the issue when presenting your biosketch and selecting appropriate citations. At the end of July, AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP* released a joint position statement on predatory publishing and its “threat both to researchers publishing the results of their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.” You can read the full statement in Current Medical Research and Opinion here.
*AMWA – American Medical Writers Association
EMWA – European Medical Writers Association
ISMPP – International Society for Medical Publication Professionals

When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?

When choosing the primary sources for a research proposal, most of us experienced types dutifully instruct new researchers and proposal writers that sources older than five years are too old, unless you’re citing a seminal work. And there it usually ends–if primary research is less than five years old at the time of review, have at it. But recently a researcher pointed out the new reality of technology, the down side of our real-time existence–research that is too new. That’s right, research on which the digital ink has yet to dry can be too bleeding edge to reliably support your hypothesis in the eyes of reviewers. There are two primary reasons this is a new, but important, reality in the world of research proposals. Continue reading “When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?”

Plagiarism Is Theft of IP, and It Is Unethical in All Forms Period

I typically dislike getting into a fray, but a tweet this morning struck a nerve. I write the following entry not to start a throw down, but to defend intellectual property rights.

I was disheartened to read my Twitter feed this morning, in which @NatureNews (yes, Nature!) promoted one of its columns in which the author applies ethical relativism to plagiarism. He claims “not all plagiarism requires a retraction.” I respectfully disagree. The author divides plagiarism into three types of theft: ideas, results, and words. He argues vociferously against the theft of those areas in his wheelhouse, ideas and results, and thinks those thefts of intellectual property should be prosecuted to the fullest. He discounts the theft of writing, since apparently it is not something he “values”:

“Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism — such as taking credit for someone else’s research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.”

Writing is a skill that enables the clear communication of ideas and results and facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and the development of science, among other things. It is essential, and it is valuable, and there are plenty of top scientists who are also superb writers. E. O. Wilson’s Diversity of Life was a major inspiration for me to become a wildlife biologist. Without his writing skill, I may never have become aware of his amazing, paradigm-shifting work in the field of biology, his science. To say that writing is not intellectual property to be valued in the same way “ideas” and “results” is to undermine the very way in which “ideas” and “results” live and perpetuate science, and it discounts the work of some of the best scientists in history who were also gifted writers.

Further, science is about the ability to synthesize information to create new ideas. Simple regurgitation and narration of past findings holds no value in the movement of science forward. Plagiarism of language is regurgitation used in narration, a mark of the lack of synthesis and original thought. Detection of plagiarism in documents such as research reports and grant proposals are clear indications that the writer is regurgitating, not synthesizing. What is the value of the research being reported or proposed in this case? Likely very little.

There are countless reasons why the theft of any intellectual property is wrong without caveat. It is theft, after all. Distinguishing between types of theft serves little purpose. And might I point out that people rarely steal that which they do not, in some way, value. To argue that language is of lesser value, and therefore its theft should be punished less than that of ideas and results is fallacious. If it is of little or no value to you, then don’t steal it.

Boom.

 

Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part IV (Final)

Last week I began posting a four-part series by guest author, John Byram (@jwbyram). I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John’s thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.

John’s originally posted this piece on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum. Today is Part IV (the final entry) of the series. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part IV (Final)”

Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part III

This week I have been posting four-part series by guest author, John Byram (@jwbyram). I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John’s thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.

John’s originally posted this piece on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum. Today is Part III of the series, and the final section, Part IV, will be published Monday. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part III”

Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part II

As I mentioned yesterday, I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John Byram’s (@jwbyram) thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.

Today we have Part II of the four-part series John originally posted on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum, and I will publish it here in its original four-part format. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part II”

Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing

I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John Byram’s (@jwbyram) thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.

This is a four-part series John originally posted on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum, and I will publish it here in its original four-part format. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do.

Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing”