• Logo
  • SBMUJournals

A Response to a Non-Tested Hypothesis: Unawareness of Researchers is the Main Reason for Being Duped by Predatory Journals

Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohammad Lagzian
1374

Views


Abstract

Nowadays, the academic world is faced with various challenges involving fraudulent activities related to publishing. The most important of these concerns the fast growth in predatory journals, a phenomenon that has more victims than others. In response, we have offered papers and proceedings that discuss the issue of predatory journals in trying to increase the awareness of researchers. The unproven hypothesis is that by increasing awareness among junior researchers the numbers of victims will decrease. This hypothesis, however, has never been tested. In this short piece, we try to prove or reject this conjecture.

References

Beall J. Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research. Journal of Korean medical science. 2016;31(10):1511-3.

Jalalian M, Mahboobi H. Hijacked Journals and Predatory Publishers: Is There a Need to Re-Think How to Assess the Quality of Academic Research? Walailak Journal of Science and Technology. 2014;11(5):389-94.

Narimani M, Dadkhah M. Predatory Journals and Perished Articles; a Letter to Editor. Emergency. 2017;5(1): 258-60.

Clark AM, Thompson DR. Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2016:n/a-n/a.

Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the

Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015;66(7):1406-17.

Christopher MM, Young KM. Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2015;2:22.

Günaydin GP, Dogan NÖ. A Growing Threat for Academicians: Fake and Predatory Journals. Journal of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015;14(2):94.

Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2016;98(2):77-9.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.