22 JUNE 2016 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG 4) Recognize that the OA model entails more than the idealistic ‘free science for all’ concept. The OA model acts as an impediment to genuine science publishing for researchers with few resources and as an open floodgate to the uncontrolled publication of information bereft of any quality control. Predatory and pseudo-journals are the unexpected side effects of the OA model, which itself is a remedy far worse than the perceived original disease. 5) Encourage the few quality OA journals to re-consider the company they keep. In addition, progressively disengage wellestablished, high-quality publishers from the OA model, rather than sponsor it, as currently do Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — although most of their journals are, in fact, non-OA. While not all OA journals are predatory, all predatory journals are OA. OA is not the cause of predatory journals, but it is the unconditional prerequisite. There are currently very few highquality OA journals, so it is not too late to stem the tide of predatory journals by disengaging from this business model. For students and potential authors 1) Before citing or even reading a paper, and certainly before sending a manuscript to a journal, check to see if it is listed in JCR. This will at least eliminate most predatory journals, but not the more crafty pseudo-journals. It should be noted that both categories contain a few journals with JCR impact factors — these are mostly previously legitimate journals that have ‘crossed to the Dark Side.’ 2) If you cannot access JCR, check to see if the journal’s publisher is on any of Beall’s lists (scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/ bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016 : predatory publishers, hijacked publishers, standalone journals, false metrics). 3) Be aware that regardless of utopian and / or disingenuous declarations to the contrary, your reputation is at stake when you choose a journal for your manuscript. 4) Above all, ask yourself if you really want this article to come up on a computer screen next to your own, or have your article cited in it: Krizhanovsky, E.V. and Choong, L.K. (2014). ‘Study of the influence of subtle energetic changes in environment on the productivity of the process of sleep,’ Open Journal of Ecology 4(11), 693-702! Our experience attempting to formally alert the scientific publishing community to the threat of predatory OA journals and pseudo-journals has shown that, although individual scientists are quite receptive, the journals themselves are not. It is true that any shake-up of the scientific publishing world may generate some collateral credibility damage to all journals, but we feel that this is far preferable to the mortal credibility danger posed by the continuing existence and spread of predatory OA journals. Views similar to ours have recently been expressed in the Journal of Korean Medical Science (Barroga 2015, Gasparyan 2015). Many publishers and bibliometric researchers simply feel that predatory OA journals are a form of the unpleasant and abundant ‘junk’ that is an inevitable part of the internet landscape, and that scientists should just accept this, as have most other components of society (numerous personal communications). To the contrary, we argue categorically that accepting ‘junk’ as a major, inevitable part of the scientific landscape is antithetical to the credibility, and therefore the very existence, of science itself. We call for determined, effective action to protect the currency of science. Notes This article was originally published in the Journal of Shellfish Research 35, No. 1, 1-5, 2016. Peter G. Beninger, Laboratoire de Biologie Marine, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Nantes, 2, rue de la Houssinière, 44322 France Jeffrey Beall, Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, 1100 Lawrence Street, Denver, Colorado, 80204 USA Sandra Shumway, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut,1080 Shennecossett Road,Groton, CT 06340 USA Acknowledgments We thank Dr. H. Browman for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, as well as the numerous colleagues who have lent their support and encouragement. The Conseil Régional des Pays de la Loire, France, provided ongoing financial support (PGB), although not specifically for this work. References Amin, M., and M. Mabe. 2000. Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing 1:1-6. Barroga, E. 2015. Predatory publishing practices corrode the credibility of science. J. Korean Med. Sci. 30:1535-1536. Bohannon, J. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342:60-65. Burchardt, J. 2014. Researchers outside APC-financed open access: implications for scholars without a paying institution. SAGE Open, 4(3):1-11 doi:10.1177/2158244014551714 Casadevall, A. and F.C. Fang. 2015. Impacted science: impact is not importance. Downloaded from mbio.asm.org on November 6, 2015 - Published by mbio.asm.org. Frank, M. 2013. Open but not free - publishing in the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine 368:787-789. Garfield, E. 2006. The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 295: 90-93. Gasparyan, A.Y., M. Yessirkepov, S.N. Diyanova, and G.D. Kitas. 2015. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: a dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science 30:1010-1016. Krizhanovsky, E.V. and L.K. Choong. 2014. Study of the influence of subtle energetic changes in environment on the productivity of the process of sleep. Open Journal of Ecolody 4:693-702. Shen, C. and B.C. Björk. 2015. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13: 230, DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2. Simmons, K. 2008. The misused Impact Factor. Science 322:165. ... 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=