Matteo Gallo1, Lucas Gallo2, Sadek Mowakket1, Jessica Murphy2, Eric Duku3,4, Achilles Thoma2,4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Background: Predatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery. Methods: Unsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study. Results: In total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science. Conclusions: Of the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.
Background: Predatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery. Methods: Unsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study. Results: In total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science. Conclusions: Of the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Kelly D Cobey; Manoj M Lalu; James Galipeau; Marc T Avey; Nadera Ahmadzai; Mostafa Alabousi; Pauline Barbeau; Andrew Beck; Raymond Daniel; Robert Frank; Mona Ghannad; Candyce Hamel; Mona Hersi; Brian Hutton; Inga Isupov; Trevor A McGrath; Matthew D F McInnes; Matthew J Page; Misty Pratt; Kusala Pussegoda; Beverley Shea; Anubhav Srivastava; Adrienne Stevens; Kednapa Thavorn; Sasha van Katwyk; Roxanne Ward; Dianna Wolfe; Fatemeh Yazdi; Ashley M Yu; Hedyeh Ziai Journal: Nature Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Paul Glasziou; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Mike Clarke; Steven Julious; Susan Michie; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321