Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts
- PMID: 31876786
- DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000829
Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts
Abstract
Purpose of review: Predatory publishing poses a serious educational end ethical threat to the credibility of science. The aim of this review is to discuss the main features of this deceptive open-access model, its potential consequences and relevance for the whole scientific community.
Recent findings: Recent reports showed that scholars and clinicians from all research fields, including anesthesiology, are facing an alarming invasion of predatory journals and, more recently, fake conferences. This review discusses key elements of these phenomena and proposes countermeasures to tackle the problem.
Summary: Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical. These range from publication of experimental data that are unreliable and poorly verified to inflated curricula and 'doped' academic careers. Because clinical practice is heavily based on research data, a solution is needed to ultimately ensure patients' safety.
References
-
- Butterworth JFI, Vetter TR. Predatory journals undermine peer review and cheapen scholarship. Anesth Analg 2019; 128:11–12.
-
- Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012; 489:179.
-
- Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Nature 2019; 576:210–212.
-
- Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, et al. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; 32:1441–1449.
-
- Shen C, Bjork B-C. Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13:230.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials