20 JUNE 2016 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG Just as the internet has provided the conditions for predatory journals to flourish, so it amplifies the dilution of science by giving predatory journals a visibility indistinguishable from normal journals, simply because search engines cannot evaluate quality, only recognize words. An analysis of the geographic origins of predatory journal authors, however, reveals that fully 80 percent are from developing countries (Shen and Björk 2015), normally the ones who should have the least money to pay for page charges! Such a situation raises even further questions of credibility and, in a perverted manner, vindicates the utopian belief that OA will increase the developing world’s access to ‘publication.’ In the developed world, scientists can, at best, recognize most of the genuine journals in their fields, but are unable to do so consistently in other fields; understandably, their students at the undergraduate level cannot even do that. While searching for referees for submitted manuscripts somewhat out of our own fields (PGB and SS), we now bring up as many recent articles from predatory as from genuine journals. Student reports now include predatory journals in their reference sections. As the number of predatory publications rises, science is facing a ‘dilution crisis,’ in which science itself will soon be reduced to homeopathic levels. Pseudo-Journals An even more insidious type of predatory journal is the pseudojournal, in which perfunctory, sham peer-reviews are performed. These journals are much more difficult to expose, because they actually do send manuscripts to reviewers, but publish virtually all submissions regardless of the reviews, in return for page charges. These pseudo-journals therefore claim a minimum legitimacy that the more clearly predatory journals lack altogether. Predatory OA Journal Tactics Predatory OA journals combine a variety of dishonest and unethical tactics to lure researchers past their pay gates. The most common of these are: sham credibility devices and supporting structures, exaggerated quality claims, and professions of altruism. Sham credibility devices and supporting structures To date, the last and only bulwark against the complete interpenetration of predatory, pseudo-, and genuine science journals is the Thomson-Reuters ISI JCR, which does not list predatory journals, and attempts to screen out the pseudo-journals. The response of the predatory and pseudo-publishers has been to create parallel, sham credibility devices and supporting structures. These are: • Ostentatious use of abbreviations such as ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and ISSN (International Standard Serial Number). Neither of these designations is related to any aspect of scientific or journal quality. • Brazen imitations of well-known quality indicators. Since its founding in 1960, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) did not envisage a world in which such predatory practices could exist. It unfortunately did not patent the words Impact Factor or even the abbreviations ISI or IF. Predatory journals now advertise attractive ‘IF,’ but do not mention that they are calculated using vague and subjective criteria by pop-up organizations (Beall’s list references 27). For example, the International Society for Research Activity (ISRA) index awards points simply for having an editorial board or for publishing in English (notwithstanding that the web site is replete with its own embarrassingly egregious language problems). Other journals use the term Impact Factor, yet it is calculated according to their own incomprehensible, and even absurd, formulae, e.g. (original grammar conserved): “Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development Impact Factor: 1.3* *Unofficial 2013 Impact Factor was established by dividing the number of articles published in 2011 and 2012 were cited in 2013 based on a search of the Google Scholar Citation Index database. If ‘X’ is the total number of articles published in 2011 and 2012, and ‘Y’ is the number of times these articles were cited in indexed journals during 2013 than, impact factor = X/Y.» As is often the case, the use of these alternative IFs is cunningly couched in quasi-political terms which castigate the ISI JCR for being published by a for-profit organization: “There is only one official, universally recognised impact factor that is generated by Thomson Reuters; it is a proprietary measure run by a profit making organisation. It runs against the ethics and principles of open access.” (ScientificResearch: www.scirp.org/journal/Journalcitationdetails. aspx?JournalID=164&utm_campaign=IF&utm_source=e_ cp&utm_medium=abb_20150116_yuanting_zx#. VMOjPUdMzAs). • False or misleading indexing claims. Some predatory OA journals do not balk at falsely claiming to be indexed in JCR, e.g. ‘Annual Research & Review in Biology (ARRB): ISI Thomson Reuters indexed journal.’ • Establishment of an OA umbrella organization that acts to promote the OA model that spawned predatory journals (DOAJ). • Use of the words ‘British’ and ‘American’ in the predatory journal title, although most originate in neither country, and many may have only one or no British or American members on their editorial boards. A good example is the British Journal of Applied Science & Technology. This journal is not listed by JCR, and only one editor of 100 is British. In a small disclaimer on the journal home page, however, we read ‘This international journal has no connection with any scholarly society or association or any specific geographic location or any country’ (www.sciencedomain.org/aboutjournal.php?id=5). • Exclusive reliance on ‘post-publication peer review.’ This practice, originally used to collegially improve draft versions of manuscripts, e.g. in particle physics and cosmology, can easily be subverted to dispense with any review at all, while the journal pockets the money from page charges. Exaggerated quality claims Predatory and pseudo-journals universally profess high quality standards. However, predatory and pseudo-journals appear to either misunderstand the meaning of the term high quality, or they intentionally mislead readers with exaggerated quality claims. For example, the BJAST website announces (original spelling and grammar conserved): “Science (IF: 31) report confirmed the high standard of SDI journal. As per a recent report (Link) of Science journal (present Impact factor 31), one of our journal (British Journal of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=