The discussed criteria for evaluating open access publishers are useful suggestions for all researchers, especially higher degree research candidates and other early career researchers. The need for such evaluation has become more obvious post the closing of the Beall’s list, but arguably was good practice even when that list was operating.
.
Crime stories are typically portrayed as a fight between good and bad. Publishing biomedical research is similar. A few years ago the (now defunct) Scholarly Open Access website listed journals and publishers presumed to be bad, a ‘black list’.
.
To get on the black list, its curator, Jeffrey Beall, used a number of criteria, such as comprehensive instructions for authors that are easily identified on the journal’s website, from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association. If he felt the journal and/or publisher did not meet these criteria he added it to his list. He coined the term ‘predatory’ journals and publishers to describe these entities.
.
Black lists, white lists and the evidence: exploring the features of ‘predatory’ journals – BioMed Central Blog (David Moher & Larissa Shamseer | March 2017)
Posted by saviorteam in Research Integrity on June 28, 2017
Keywords: Analysis, Authorship, Biomedical, Fraud, Institutional responsibilities, International, Medical research, News, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities
Keywords: Analysis, Authorship, Biomedical, Fraud, Institutional responsibilities, International, Medical research, News, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities
Related Reading
No Related Readings Found!
Related Links
Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.