WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • JUNE 2016 19 in 2015 with 42 journals with such sorely-needed titles as ‘Chemistry Journal’ and ‘Physics Journal’ (www. random.org)! Current Status and Trend How many predatory journals exist today, and how does this compare with recent years? With sufficient time and desire to devote to such a question, it should be possible to ascertain a reasonably accurate number. Lacking both of these prerequisites, we instead randomly sampled 65 of the 693 publishers on Beall’s 2016 list of predatory publishers (scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-ofpredatory-publishers-2014/), computed the mean number of journals per publisher (11), and multiplied this by the number of publishers on the list, to obtain a very conservative estimate of the total number of predatory journals in 2015: 10,153. Applying the procedure above to each year since 2011, the progression of predatory journals is shown in Figure 1. Our measurement technique achieves results quite close to those recently published (Shen and Björk 2015) using a more complex multistage stratified sampling design (7,623 vs. approximately 8,000 predatory journals in 2014, with an estimated 420,000 published articles!). The estimates are conservative because the list includes only publishers of multiple journals, and not ‘stand-alone’ journals, which number 882 to date (scholarlyoa. com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016), and the list is undermanned, and relies upon volunteers to report predatory journals, which are then examined individually. To date, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) lists 11,315 OA journals (doaj.org). Prior to 2016, the only requirement for inclusion in the DOAJ list was that the journal be OA, which obviously qualified many predatory journals. Minimum quality criteria were introduced in 2015, such that the degree of overlap between the journals in the DOAJ database and Beall’s list is currently not known, although if a reader has approximately one year of free time, this could be ascertained. Notwithstanding, the conservative estimate of the number of predatory journals in 2015 was 7,623, or ≈ 75% of the number of DOAJ-listed journals in 2015 (Fig. 1). The 2014 ISI Journal Citation Reports lists approximately 14,000 journals that are considered genuine (due to re-structuring of the JCR website, we are unable to ascertain the current number). After less than 5 years, there were thus already half as many predatory journals as there were genuine journals, which have built their reputations over the past two centuries (Fig. 1). Although the number of data points is necessarily limited by the novelty of the predatory OA phenomenon (years), and thus far too small to construct a serious model, a very short-term projection suggests that if the current conditions persist, by approximately mid-2016 there will be as many predatory OA journals as genuine journals. knowledge, previously restricted to a perceived wealthy and exclusive scientific elite (www. budapestopenaccessinitiative. org/boai-10-recommendations; www.plos.org/open-access/; openaccess.mpg.de/BerlinDeclaration; blog.scienceopen. com/). Like most manifestos, the BOAI statement is a cleverlydesigned document that substitutes ‘motherhood and apple pie’ dogma for critical thought. It can be summed up in the Vision Statement of the Open Access Academy website: ‘Freely available research results for everyone’ (www.oaacademy. org/vision-and-mission.html) — apparently accustomed to gratuitous luncheons. The BOAI statement exploits human cognitive and moral weaknesses and provides a platform for members of a vocal social movement. Those wishing to announce their adhesion to the open-access social movement simply repeat the ideas and concepts presented in the original Budapest statement or the ensuing copycat statements. The continual and collective repetition of the OA mantras has assumed the status of a consensual truth. The fact that OA restricted access to publishing scientific information (Frank 2013, Burchardt 2014), and therefore further disadvantaged legitimate scientists with small research funding, both in developed and developing countries, seemed to be lost in the ‘free access’ euphoria. It was proposed that these scientists need only send a letter to the OA journal declaring their impoverished state, and all would be fine. Intentionally or not, it apparently occurred to nobody that this was a demeaning process which would constitute a very real barrier to publishing for many scientists, not least of them from European countries with great pride and small resources. Setting aside these serious reservations about access, it must be said that the original OA intentions were honorable on the fundamental quality-control issue. The BOAI reads ‘Open access to peer-reviewed literature is the goal.’ In the years following the BOAI, we realized that this was a Panglossian statement, formulated as the OA proponents watched unicorns peacefully graze on the grass outside. While thus distracted, a sinister and previously unknown menace began to appear: predatory journals. These are the scientific journal equivalent to counterfeit coinage; like the latter, they appear to represent a guaranteed value, while containing at best a reduced value, and often virtually none at all. The reason: abandonment of the ‘gentleman’s agreement.’ Predatory journals have no quality control. They have accepted and/or published papers by the Simpson family, by computer-generated nonsense programs, and by sting operations (www.sciencealert.com/twoscientific-journals-have-accepted-a-study-by-maggie-simpson-andedna-krabappel, Bohannon 2013). Their publishers have appeared virtually overnight, like Scientific Online Publishing (SOP), which appeared in 2013, and by 2014 was ‘publishing’ 42 journals, nominally covering a vast spectrum of scientific domains. Public Science Framework (PSF) outdid them, opening instantaneously FIGURE 1. Progression and projection of conservatively - estimated number of predatory OA journals, 2010 - 2015. ★ = approximate current number of journals in ISI Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 20)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=