We read with interest the recent article in series on art and science of
paper writing [1]. With a focus on guiding emerging authors from falling
prey to predatory journals, the article indeed puts up a sincere effort.
This is relevant as India has already been pointed out as a hub of such
greedy journals [2]. However, we would like to add few more points.
If we consider recent debate over recommendations for
academic promotion, it was noted that such journals are sending spam
mails to authors with a mention of their eligibility for Medical Council
of India criteria – an act equivalent to trapping ambitious authors –
luring them to ‘fast-track publications’ at the cost of quality and
originality. As noted by Beall, such journals are originating every
week, particularly from developing world [2]. The root of many so-called
global/ world/ international journals could be traced back to countries
like India and Nigeria [3,4].
As we are being flooded with predatory journals
today, the process of scientific communication is also undergoing some
prominent changes. One of them is introduction of open access by the
frontiers of health research. In addition, for ensuring survival in a
competitive market, even legitimate publishers are offering short review
process [2]. On the other hand, to keep reputations intact, many
journals are seen to retract duplicate/plagiarised publications – a
clear indication that better review process is not uniformly available
across the globe.
Criteria were proposed earlier in literature to help
authors get rid of the predatory journals [3]. In fact, if we consider
publication fee/submission fee as a parameter for detecting predatory
nature, numerous journals from India would lose their sheen. Many open
access journals have no or substandard review process and article
processing fee keeps more merit than scientific contribution, revealed a
sting operation conducted by the journal Science [4]. The authors
need to be cautious while dealing with e-mails requesting scientific
contribution or joining editorial boards. All open access journals are
not fishy, but some definitely are.
In fact, scientific committees all over the world has
not appointed Beall for identifying the predatory journals. People have
also reacted to his effort of ‘correcting’ the trend of open access [5].
However, even after all controversies, when we discuss a topic like
‘publishing in scientific journal’, Beall makes most of the appearances
on a positive note, not his critics!
1. Dewan P, Shah D. A writer’s dilemma: Where to
publish and where not to? Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:141-5.
2. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open
access. Nature. 2012;489:179.
3. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas
GD. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all
stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:1010-6.
4. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science.
2013;342:60-5.
5. Bivens-Tatum W. Reactionary rhetoric against open
access publishing. Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique.
2014;12:441-6.