Integrity in academic dissemination and publishing

Members of the group

Head:

Irene Glendinning

Members:

Marco Cosentino
Salim Razı
Sivasubramaniam, Shiva
Ansgar Schäfer
Julius Kravjar
Harun Serpil
Laura Ribeiro
Sumayyia Dawood Marar
Muawiyah Ahmad H. Ahmed

Mission of the working group

To reduce the impact of disreputable publishers and fraudulent academic conferences

Aims and objectives

  • Identify, define and characterize questionable editorial, publishing and dissemination practices
  • Promote institutional academic integrity by providing checklists to identify disreputable publishers and conferences
  • Identify good practices – perhaps with reference to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
  • Highlight the threats from disreputable publishers and conferences
  • Provide support to scholars for developing knowledge and skills in distinguishing reputable from disreputable publications / journals / conferences
  • Conduct research about this phenomenon, for example – explore where / how / to what extent academic progression and promotion depends on the predatory industry
  • Network/collaborate with institutions, working groups, other people interested in this topic

Opportunities, possible actions

  • Conduct a literature review of research on predatory journals – particularly to help us compare different views on criteria to define “predatory”
  • Publication – write a position paper, opinion piece
  • Collect rumours about journals
  • How to address wrong accusations of being predatory/questionable/black-listed
  • Develop studies based on academic disciplines and geographical examples
  • Document issues related to predatory publishing practices – build a case series
  • Develop metrics / software to rate the journals in terms of their parameters – subjective, transparent – Integrity score – develop metrics based on the criteria.
  • Develop guidance for novice authors, eg PhD students – – develop some kind of helping leaflets or so, which one could use to get important information about topic and also a set of questions, with which everyone can evaluate journals  (whether it is probably a predatory one). See discussion of last days.
  • Find ways to diminish the markets of these companies
  • Names of professors seen to be using such services – contact them
  • Recommend procedures and policies to be followed – particularly for advising education ministries planning to develop guidelines or regulations
  • Contract Web of Science and encourage them to invite people submit evidence about journals already on their list that are suspected of being disreputable.
  • Poll of academics – what criteria they would have – crowd source ideas.
  • Explore the citation rates for predatory journals – using  Google Scholar. Scopus, Web of Science.
  • Providing a platform to academics in order to report suspicious cases and informing others by presenting evidence of suspicious publisher – Set up an open on-line digital forum for people to share experiences about such threats.