| At the recent UKSG conference, the audience asked the expert panel more questions than time allowed for answers. We have gathered the questions here and our expert panel has provided answers. |
| How can we reassure researchers? Question: How can we reassure researchers who may feel concerned about predatory publishers and therefore stick with a small number of journals they trust? And at the same time make sure they are aware and making savvy choices. Answer: Predatory publishing is a serious problem and, understandably, researchers are seeking reassurance. A good place to start is by talking to their librarian who is an expert. They may also want to talk to colleagues, particularly if they have published in a journal to which the researcher is unfamiliar. There are also tools such as those listed below which can help them. If the researchers would like to submit to journals they have not published before, a good place to start is with the journals they and their colleagues know and read. We then recommend that they use the Think. Check. Submit. checklist for journals https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/. This asks them questions about how the journal can be identified and contacted if it is clear about the type of peer review is used, are the articles indexed and/or archived, if it is clear what fees will be charged, the licensing used and membership of industry initiatives. You might also want to view our video on Due Diligence https://youtu.be/bdM6fxP2ZkI Using the checklist and following the tips in the video librarians can help researchers to find new trusted journals for their research. |
| Hallmarks that make it easier to spot predatory publishers Question: Are there any hallmarks that make it easier to spot predatory publishers that it would be good to look out for and educate researchers about? Answer: Yes, there are hallmarks that you should look out for. The Think. Check. Submit. checklists are a good way of identifying and avoiding predatory publishers. An additional resource is the article by Cenyu Shen and Leena Shah. Table 1 in the article lists the warnings that alert predatory behaviours ‘Predatory publishing practices: what researchers should know before submitting their manuscript’. DOI: 10.1629/uksg.631 Target researchers Question: Are there any trends around who is being targeted, for example, differences between? early year career academics, emerging research institutions or established researcher-intensive HEIs? Answer: Predatory publishing is a global threat, with every country experiencing it at different levels. Traditionally, there was a perception that early career researchers from developing countries were the primary submitting to predatory journals due to factors like pressure to publish and lack of awareness about reputable publishing practices. However, recent empirical evidence challenges this assumption, revealing that authors from various academic backgrounds contribute to predatory journals. This highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for comprehensive strategies to tackle predatory publishing at all levels of academia. |
| Cohesion between Academic disciplines Question: Is there natural cohesion between Academic disciplines in dealing with predatory publishing? e.g. Would a national Board looking after Arts or Law would work with Sciences together or would it be more the institutions protecting researchers and collaborating? Answer: Predatory publishing is a global problem impacting all academic disciplines. Institutions, funders and publishers should be involved in raising awareness of the problems of predatory publishers. All these organisations want to empower all researchers, whatever discipline to make sound publishing decisions. That said, academic societies and associations are also well-placed to reach the researchers in their fields. For example, we encourage them to embed links to the Think. Check. Submit. tools on their websites. |
| The work of due-diligence Question: Is the additional work of checking for predatory journals favouring traditional publishers and well-established journals to the detriment of newer publications? Answer: Checking whether a submission meets the aims and scope of a journal is always important, whether the publisher is long-standing or new. It is also important to check the charges before submission for all journals, these should always be displayed on the publisher’s website. The issue of predatory journals has led to the development of watch lists that aim to identify such journals. However, these lists have serious limitations, including a lack of transparency and objectivity. It is not always clear which criteria are used to determine if a journal can be trusted, and conflicts of interest may arise due to the unknown compilers of the lists. Furthermore, these lists may not be updated regularly, leaving new journals out of the picture. Some journals may also be included in the list due to their poor website design, which could be a result of limited resources. To address this challenge, the Think. Check. Submit. approach aims to empower researchers to develop long-term skills in assessing journals and publishers. This includes providing tools to assist researchers in evaluating whether a particular journal is a suitable venue for their research. So, some additional work is required, but the pay-off is finding the right journal or publisher for a researcher’s work. How can libraries can help researchers’ awareness of predatory practices? |
| Question: We have seen other variations of predatory practices, such as companies offering to make a rudimentary video about an author’s research for a hefty fee. How do the panel think that libraries can help researchers’ awareness of predatory practices as the predatory publishers evolve their approaches? Answer: A good way for librarians and researchers to keep up-to-date is to follow the Think. Check. Submit. blog https://bit.ly/3wdToHx. They can also sign up for our newsletter https://thinkchecksubmit.org/. Libraries are vital in helping researchers stay aware of predatory practices as predatory publishers evolve their approaches. A key driver of traffic to Think. Check. Submit. are links from library websites? We recommend that librarians provide a link and short explanation on their websites to Think. Check. Submit, and that they also include information about emerging predatory practices and how to avoid them. Videos can help give research a wider reach. Authors can use them on their social media channels, in conference presentations and as a link in future grant applications. While there are reputable companies, others may not be so. We would recommend asking for recommendations from colleagues and their journal publishers, indeed some of the larger publishers now offer these services themselves. They should also look at existing videos on the site and see if they are from anyone they are familiar with. They should also check that video producers are transparent about their fees, the quality/technical process and when they will be charged. |
The session @ #UKSG2024 the audience asked more questions than time allowed. You can read the answers now provided by our expert panel. The plenary panel featured Cenyu Shen, the Deputy Head of Editorial (Quality) from DOAJ, Katherine Stephan from Liverpool John Moores University/Think.Check.Submit and Cath Dishman from Liverpool John Moores University.
Photo by Simon Williams Photography