Advertisement

Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research

  • Markus Rupp
  • Lydia Anastasopoulou
  • Elke Wintermeyer
  • Deeksha Malhaan
  • Thaqif El Khassawna
  • Christian Heiss
Review

Abstract

Predatory publishing is a major threat to contemporary publishing, as it offers 'to unaware scientist’s', a quick open-access publication against fees without peer-review procedures.. Lack of peer-review leads to unethical practices, as plagiarism, publication of unscientific falsified data, and even unsafe clinical practices. As these journals threaten the credibility of academic publishing, significant work has been done from many scientific teams, in the last years, in establishing discriminating criteria between predatory and legitimate publishing. In the present review, we include mechanisms used by predatory editors to convince eager researchers to submit to their journals. We also provide useful links giving information about potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as scholarly writing. Joining the efforts of different scientific disciplines which compiled “green” lists with journals in their field, we conducted a “green” list with genuine orthopaedic research journals based on the directory of open-access journals (DOAJ) and Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. Ninety-six legitimate orthopaedic journals were identified based on the Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. One hundred thirty hits were found on the DOAJ site using the keywords “orthopaedics, orthopedics, sports medicine, musculoskeletal, trauma, traumatology, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, cartilage, bone, hand, shoulder, knee, hip, foot, wound.” Twenty-one journals on the DOAJ site occurred overlapping with keywords. Researchers and clinicians in the field of orthopaedics are advised to use all available tools in order to recognize predatory practices and avoid publishing in predatory journals.

Keywords

Predatory journals Legitimate publishing Open access 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cowell HR. A brief history of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. (0009-921X (Print))Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwarzmann-Schafhauser D (2004) Orthopädie im Wandel : die Herausbildung von Disziplin und Berufsstand in Bund und Kaiserreich (1815-1914). Franz Steiner Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ginsparg P (2006) As we may read. J Neurosci 26(38):9606–9608.  https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3161-06.2006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanchez-Martin FM, Millan Rodriguez F, Villavicencio Mavrich H. [The Open Access Initiative (OAI) in the scientific literature] (La Iniciativa Open Access (OAI) en la literatura cientifica.). (0210–4806 (Print))Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Till JE. Success factors for open access. (1438–8871 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suber P, Brown P, Cabell D, Coll (2003) The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access PublishingGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. (1478–7083 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark J, Smith R (2015) Firm action needed on predatory journals. Br Med J 350Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shyam A. Predatory journals: what are they? (2250–0685 (Print))Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beall JA. Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. (1598–6357 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. (1476–4687 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. (1330–0962 (Print))Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reves J, Silva BM, Durao J, Ribeiro NV, Lemos S, Escada P. Predatory publishing: an industry that is threatening science. (1646–0758 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen C, Bjork BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. (1741–7015 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M MVaS (2017) Predatory Journals in Scopus, Institute for Democracy and Economic AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Umlauf MG, Mochizuki Y. Predatory publishing and cybercrime targeting academics. (1440-172X (Electronic))Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A M (2017) Discussing predatory journals – EASE at the 5th World Conference on Research IntegrityGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    COPE D, OASPA, WAME (2015) Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Power HA. Predatory publishing: how to safely navigate the waters of open access. (0844–5621 (Print))Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearson GS (2017) Avoiding predatory journals with “think. check. submit”. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 23(4):239–240.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390317716883 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Institute of Health UNLoM (2017) Fact sheet MEDLINE journal selection. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/jsel.html. Accessed 15 June 2018
  22. 22.
    Beall J (2012) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 1st ednGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beall J (2012) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beall J (2015) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beall J. Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. (1476–4687 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beall J (2015) Beall’s ListGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anderson R (2017) Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: a reviewGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silver A (2017) Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. NatureGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nelson N, Huffman J (2015) Predatory journals in library databases: how much should we worry? Ser Libr 69(2):169–192.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Witham MD, Runcie H (2017) Turning predator into prey–the problem of predatory journals. J R Coll Physicians Edinb.  https://doi.org/10.4997/JrcPe.2017.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. (1741–7015 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD,Coll. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. (1476–4687 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Al-Khatib AA, Teixeira da Silva JA. Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? LID.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. (1471–5546 (Electronic))
  34. 34.
    Clark J. Letter to the Editor - predatory journals: bad for all but especially authors from low and middle income countries. (1646–0758 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saha I, Paul B. Research submission: some technicalities and vital links. (0377–1237 (Print))Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, Lillemoe KD, Garden OJ, Roh MS, Lee JE, Balch CM, Aloia TA. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. (2058–8615 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Das AK. Publish and flourish: take the road less travelled! (0377–1237 (Print))Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bowman DE, Wallace MB. Predatory journals: a serious complication in the scholarly publishing landscape. (1097–6779 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP. Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. (1432–5195 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Okike K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with higher citation rates in orthopedics. (1878–5921 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Pećina M, Niculescu M (2015) Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics. Int Orthop 39(8):1459–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Urrutia J, Zamora T, Prada C. The fifty most cited Latin-American articles in the orthopaedic literature. (1432–5195 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, Panagopoulos GN, Mauffrey C, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2017) Best one hundred papers of International Orthopaedics: a bibliometric analysis. Int Orthop 41(4):689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wicherts JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. (1932–6203 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cintas P. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices. LID.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnw115. (1574–6968 (Electronic))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferris LE, Winker MA. Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. (1330–0962 (Print))Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    medical press. (1879-730X (Electronic))Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. LID.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15039. (1468-3083 (Electronic))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weiss A, Lambert WC, Parish LC. Predatory journals: harmful to patients, the public, and the integrity of scientific research. (1540–9740 (Print))Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Moher D, Moher E. Stop predatory publishers now: act collaboratively. (1539–3704 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mauffrey C, Scarlat MM, Pećina M (2014) Setting standards for medical writing in orthopaedics. Int Orthop 38(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hinsenkamp M (2014) XXVI SICOT triennial world congress and the forty sixth SBOT annual meeting. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sabharwal S, Patel N, Johal K. Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research. (1432–5195 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. (1873–7544 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    List UG (2017)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS. Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. (1936–9018 (Electronic))Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Analytics C. Master journal listGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity Hospital Giessen-Marburg GmbHGiessenGermany
  2. 2.Experimental Trauma Surgery, Faculty of MedicineJustus-Liebig University GiessenGiessenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center TuebingenEberhard Karls University TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations