Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation.

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine.

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

[Predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology]. / Revistas depredadoras en Ortopedia y Traumatología.

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.

Las revistas depredadoras se diferencian de las revistas legítimas por su falta de adecuadas revisiones y procesos editoriales, lo que compromete la calidad del contenido publicado. Estas revistas no llevan a cabo revisiones por pares ni realizan acciones que detecten y prevengan el plagio y aceptan manuscritos sin exigir modificaciones sustanciales. Su tasa de aceptación cercana al 100% se debe a su enfoque lucrativo, sin importarles el contenido que publican. Aunque presumen tener un comité editorial compuesto por investigadores destacados, en la mayoría de los casos es una simulación destinada a impresionar y atraer a los investigadores. Además, estas revistas carecen de prácticas éticas adecuadas y no son transparentes en sus procesos editoriales. Las revistas depredadoras han afectado a múltiples disciplinas, incluida la Ortopedia y Traumatología y su presencia es aún desconocida para muchos investigadores, lo que los convierte en víctimas sin saberlo. Su estrategia consiste en solicitar artículos por correo electrónico a autores que han publicado en revistas legítimas, prometiendo una publicación rápida, sencilla y económica. Las implicaciones y consecuencias negativas de las revistas depredadoras en la comunidad científica y los investigadores son numerosas. El propósito de este trabajo es proporcionar información general sobre estas revistas y específicamente en el campo de la Ortopedia y Traumatología, brindando pautas para identificarlas y evitarlas, para que los autores puedan tomar decisiones informadas al publicar sus manuscritos y evitar caer en manos de revistas o editoriales depredadoras.

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. CONCLUSION: Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).

Objective: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing. Methods: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics. Results: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores. Conclusion: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.

Objective: The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess levels of knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals. Methods: The current study employed successive methods framework including (1) item generation through a literature review and theoretical framework development, (2) validity testing in terms of face, content, and construct validity for perceptions construct as well as item analysis for knowledge scale, and (3) reliability testing in terms of Cronbach's alpha, Kuder-Richardson (KR-20), item-to-total correlations, corrected item-to-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha if item deleted, and test-retest reliability. A total of 304 participants were recruited from King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to evaluate its construct validity and reliability. This was established using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring (PFA) and varimax rotation as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for perception construct. Results: An instrument was developed from this study called the "Predatory Journals KP Assessment Questionnaire". The results of EFA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the perception construct. Item analysis confirmed the construct validity of the knowledge scale. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were achieved for the knowledge scale items, consisting of 13 items. The results of EFA confirmed the measured constructs of perceptions toward predatory journals. The results of EFA and CFA for perception construct resulted in only one factor with 9 items. Conclusion: This study has successfully developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals among researchers in the clinical and health disciplines. This instrument serves as a valuable guide for future studies that aim to assess researcher's knowledge and perceptions about predatory journals and examine the differences in these measured constructs according to their demographic and professional characteristics.

Publicações predatórias e integridade na investigação em enfermagem: Breve olhar aristotélico da sabedoria-prática / Predatory journals and integrity in nursing research: A brief Aristotelian look at practical wisdom / Publicaciones depredadoras e integridad en la investigación en enfermería: Una breve mirada aristotélica a la sabiduría-práctica

Resumo Enquadramento: Revistas predatórias são periódicos pseudocientíficos que cobram para publicar com revisão por pares double-blind inexistente, tendo qualidade duvidosa no que concerne a revisão do editor, correções e indexação. Tais periódicos ameaçam o cenário científico. Refletir sobre os seus impactos por meio de marcos conceituais aristotélicos sobre ética e ciência é útil para explorar a integridade na investigação em enfermagem. Objetivo: Refletir sobre as publicações predatórias na produção de conhecimento de investigadores enfermeiros. Principais tópicos em análise: Trata-se de uma análise reflexiva após revisão de literatura de sete etapas. A análise relacionou os tópicos produtividade académica e as publicações predatórias, com conceitos como intemperança, desejo, razão intuitiva e Sabedoria prática expressos por Aristóteles no livro Da Ética a Nicômaco. Estas foram debatidas como uma deformidade dos conceitos de "conhecimento verdadeiro" e "meio-termo". Conclusão: A Sabedoria-prática pode ser um caminho valioso para boa deliberação norteadora da integridade, não representa o conhecimento científico propriamente e sim opera sobre ele e sobre os resultados da investigação e sua divulgação em periódicos confiáveis.

Abstract Background: Predatory journals are pseudoscientific journals that charge to publish with non-existent double-blind peer review and editor's review, corrections, and indexing of questionable quality. Such journals threaten the scientific landscape. Reflecting on their impact through Aristotle's ethics and science conceptual frameworks helps to explore integrity in nursing research. Objective: To reflect about predatory publications in the production of knowledge of the nurse researchers. Main topics under analysis: This is a reflective analysis after a seven-step literature review. The analysis linked the topics of academic productivism and predatory journals with concepts such as intemperance, desire, intuitive reason and practical wisdom expressed by Aristotle in his book "From Ethics to Nicomachean". These were discussed as a deformity of the concepts of true knowledge and middle ground. Conclusion: Practical wisdom can be a valuable path for good deliberation that guides integrity. It does not represent scientific knowledge itself but rather operates on it and the results of research and their dissemination in reliable journals.

Resumen Marco contextual: Las revistas depredadoras son publicaciones pseudocientíficas que cobran por publicar con una inexistente revisión por pares de doble ciego, que tienen una dudosa calidad en cuanto a la revisión del editor, las correcciones y la indexación. Estas revistas amenazan el panorama científico. Reflexionar sobre su impacto a través de los marcos conceptuales aristotélicos sobre ética y ciencia es útil para explorar la integridad en la investigación en enfermería. Objetivo: Reflexionar sobre las publicaciones depredadoras en la producción de conocimiento de los investigadores enfermeros. Principales temas en análisis: Se trata de un análisis reflexivo realizado tras una revisión bibliográfica en siete etapas. El análisis relacionó los temas productividad académica y publicaciones depredadoras con conceptos como intemperancia, deseo, razón intuitiva y sabiduría práctica expuestos por Aristóteles en Ética a Nicómaco. Se discutieron como una deformación de los conceptos de "conocimiento verdadero" y "término medio". Conclusión: La sabiduría práctica puede ser un camino valioso para una buena deliberación que guíe la integridad, no representa el conocimiento científico en sí, sino que opera sobre él y sobre los resultados de la investigación y su difusión en revistas fiables.

Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university.

The publish or perish concept requires academics to ensure that they take part in research and publish the research results in academic journals. The emergency of predatory publishers has led to negativity in the scholarly publishing process. Some researchers are unaware that some publishers are unethical. A study was conducted to determine the extent of predatory publishing in Zimbabwe among academics. A survey was carried out using a multi-method approach at a public university in Zimbabwe. Articles published between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved using the Harzing publish or perish software. In total, 977 articles were retrieved, and after data cleaning using Open Refine, 357 records were analyzed using the journal evaluation rubric and scoring sheet to note the extent of predatory publishing among the various schools. The articles were then classified into 3 sections i.e., predatory, not predatory, and borderline. The findings revealed that predatory publishing is prevalent in the social sciences. The authors recommend the importance of training to create awareness about the dangers of predatory publishing and how to avoid them to improve the scholarly output of the institution, which is key to university ranking.

Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool?

Yamada and Teixeira da Silva voiced valid concerns with the inadequacies of an online machine learning-based tool to detect predatory journals, and stressed on the urgent need for an automated, open, online-based semi-quantitative system that measures "predatoriness". We agree that the said machine learning-based tool lacks accuracy in its demarcation and identification of journals outside those already found within existing black and white lists, and that its use could have undesirable impact on the community. We note further that the key characteristic of journals being predatory, namely a lack of stringent peer review, would normally not have the visibility necessary for training and informing machine learning-based online tools. This, together with the gray zone of inadequate scholarly practice and the plurality in authors' perception of predatoriness, makes it desirable for any machine-based, quantitative assessment to be complemented or moderated by a community-based, qualitative assessment that would do more justice to both journals and authors.

Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence.

OBJECTIVES: Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers. METHODS: The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields. RESULTS: The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper. CONCLUSIONS: This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal.

Revistas depredadoras y secuestradas en cirugía. Qué se debe saber sobre ellas y cómo evitarlas

Las revistas depredadoras (RD), constituyen una gran amenaza para la publicación contemporánea, ya que ofrecen una publicación rápida de acceso abierto a cambio de tarifas sin procedimientos de revisión por pares para científicos jóvenes o inexpertos. Son compañías que priorizan el interés propio a expensas de la academia, caracterizándose por entregar información falsa o engañosa, distorsión de las mejores prácticas editoriales y de publicación, falta de transparencia y uso de tácticas de solicitud de manuscritos indiscriminadas y agresivas. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue generar un documento de estudio sobre las RD y secuestradas; así como de las conferencias depredadoras en cirugía.

Predatory journals (PD) are a major threat to contemporary publishing, as they offer rapid open access publication for fees without peer review procedures for young or inexperienced scientists. Are companies that prioritize self-interest at the expense of academia, characterized by providing false or misleading information, misrepresentation of publishing and editorial best practices, lack of transparency, and use of indiscriminate and aggressive manuscript solicitation tactics. The aim of this manuscript was to generate a study document regarding the PD, hijacked journals and predatory conferences in surgery.

Rebranding of Predatory Journals and Conferences: Understanding Its Implication and Prevention Strategy.

Academic conference participation and publications serve as a litmus test to evaluate researchers irrespective of their scientific discipline. Predatory or fake conferences and journals exploit this issue and rebrand themselves through multiple methods. This paper serves to introduce rebranding as one of the features adopted by predatory journals and conferences and formulate some important measures that could be taken by academic libraries, researchers, and publishers to address this issue. We found that rebranding serves as an efficient measure to evade legal implications. However, empirical longitudinal studies addressing the issue are absent. We have explained rebranding, multiple ways of rebranding, issues surrounding predatory publishing, and the role of academic libraries and provided a five-point prevention strategy to protect researchers from academic malpractices. Dedicated tools, scientific prowess, and vigilance of academic libraries and researchers can safeguard the scientific community. Creating awareness, increasing transparency of available databases, and the support of academic libraries and publishing houses along with global support will serve as effective measures to tackle predatory malpractices.

Keeping medical science trustworthy: The threat by predatory journals.

Since most scientific journals tend to ask article processes costs from authors, a new category of journals has developed of which the business model is commonly exclusively based on financial contributions by authors. Such journals have become known as predatory journals. The financial contributions that they ask are not always lower than those asked by high-quality journals although they offer less: there is commonly no real review, texts are not edited, and there are commonly no printed editions. The lack of serious reviews makes predatory journals attractive, however, particularly for authors of low-quality (or even fraudulent) manuscripts. It is shown here that numerous - commonly fairly recent - journals, some of which may predatory, attract manuscripts by approaching authors of articles in high-quality journals like Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Publication of articles in such journals contaminates thorough literature and undermines the trustworthiness of the medical society. Any involvement in such journals (as an author, reviewer or editor) of such journals should therefore be discouraged.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. METHODS: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. RESULTS: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Revisión de pares, preprints y revistas depredadoras. Ética editorial versus publicidad aplicada a la ciencia médica / Peer review, preprints and predatory journals. Publication ethics versus publicity applied to medical science

Abstract The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.

Best practices in scholarly publishing for promotion or tenure: Avoiding predatory journals.

BACKGROUND: Predatory publishing has adverse impacts on scientific literature including nursing literature. These publishers have been described as having questionable publication standards. Many faculty have expressed challenges associated with assessing publisher and journal quality. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines offering explicit instructions and guidance for faculty on assessing the quality of publishers and journals. METHOD: An appointed committee representing research, teaching, and practice scholarship performed a literature review on the topics of journal quality, scholarship for promotion and tenure, and best practices for evaluating scholarship in academic institutions. RESULTS: The committee developed additional guidance to support and assist faculty assessing journal quality. Based on these guidelines, the faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines for each of the research, teaching, and practice tracks were edited to reflect these practices. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines provided clarity for our promotion and tenure review committee and faculty.