1. Predatory Publishers are Poisoning Scholarly Communication

2. Publishing models for scholarly journals
Traditional (subscription) model
Gold open access = free to reader, author pays a fee
Platinum open-access = free to author, free to reader
Delayed open access = subscription model but OA after some time

3. Some economic aspects of open access
The change from subscription-financed journals to author- financed journals has many negative, unanticipated effects
New business models focus on authors as revenue source
Conflict of interest: more papers accepted = more income
Not all subscription journals are good; not all OA journals are bad

4. Predatory publishers and journals
Predatory publishers (journals) are those that develop the gold open- access model for their own profit
They take advantage of, exploit, and pander to scholarly authors
They pretend to be legitimate, copying established and respected journals' websites and practices
Many do a poor or fake peer review

5. History of predatory publishers
I first started to notice them in 2008 and 2009
My first publication about predatory journals was in 2009
I coined the term "predatory publisher" in summer 2010
I started my current blog in early 2012
Scholarly publishing has served certification and registration
Registration = Placing a claim on a research finding ("this is my discovery")
Certification = Validation of the research finding ("this discovery is valid science")

6. Breakdown of research cultures
Many have earned tenure and promotion through easy articles in predatory journals
The role of merit in academic advancement is disappearing
Never before has so much pseudo-science been published that looks like real science
Some academic databases are filled with junk science
Many researchers now expect cheap, easy, and fast publishing
Open access advocates are in denial about the problems OA has caused
It is possible for articles to be published open access yet still hidden

7. Problems with Scholarly metrics
Metrics can be gamed using predatory publishers
Alternative metrics
Backlash against the impact factor

8. How predatory publishers damage science
They've increased published research misconduct, such as plagiarism
The pseudo-science they publish gets indexed in Google Scholar and other academic indexes
They threaten demarcation, the division between science and pseudo-science, the cumulative nature of research
They feed bogus research to societal institutions that depend on authentic science

9. How predatory publishers damage science [2]
They are polluting taxonomy
Pharmaceutical entrepreneurs are using predatory publishers to make invented compounds appear efficacious
Author fees may prevent some authors from being able to publish their work, especially in middle-income countries and for unaffiliated researchers

10. Increased Publication of Pseudo-science

11. Related scams
Hijacked journals
Paper mills

12. Fake Impact Factors
Companies make up and sell impact factors to open-access journal publishers
Many publish articles mistakenly believing that their work is in an impact factor journal
Predatory journals advertise their bogus impact factors in spam and on their websites

13. Author services companies
Provide services such as copyediting, pre-publication peer-review, statistical, methodological review, research promotion
Are not predatory
Advantages those with money, who submit polished manuscripts
Increasingly throw the costs of scholarly publishing on the authors, favoring those with money

14. Resolving the problem of predatory journals
Little or no law enforcement action has taken place
Publishers operate under freedom of the press protections
They operate internationally, using mail forwarding services
Some authors use them for easy publications, so they persist
Open-access advocates minimize, ignore, deny the problems
Restore the role of the consumer (reader, subscriber) in scholarly publishing
Only way I know at this time is through education and awareness

15. What is Predatory Publishing?
Received an lately encouraging you to publish with a new exciting sounding journal?
Before you send your manuscript, take a few minutes to check up on that journal.
Predatory publishers abuse the open access author-pays model for their own profit. This growing industry is causing problems for academics. This guide is designed to help you navigate the nefarious world of predatory publishing.
Characteristics of Predatory Publishers
1. Does the journal charge excessive fees for publication? Excessive fees raise conflict of interest concerns.  Futhermore, all fees or charges associated with publication should be made clear to potential authors, but predatory publishers may hide their fees or charges until after they receive your manuscript.
2. Is the scholarship peer-reviewed? Predatory journals tend to provide little to no peer review or editorial oversight.
3. Have your colleagues published with the journal? If not, ask around to find out why not.
4. Is the journal included in a reputable index, such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, or psycINFO?  Predatory publishers usually are not.  They may try to distract or confuse you by listing a fake impact factor or creating false metrics to rank their journal.
5. Does the journal clearly outline its publishing process?  Legitimate journals do make their publishing process readily available.  The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association offers Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing to help academic authors navigate scholarly publishing.

16. How can authors evaluate the reputation and legitimacy of a journal?
Consult with a librarian or a writing center expert on campus.  The librarians at the Scott Memorial Library can help you determine the legitimacy of a journal/publisher.
Visit the journal's web site.  Examine closely the publisher web site.  Does it look like it was created by a shoddy web design team?  Does it contain grammar mistakes?  Does it provide responsive contact information?
Reach out to journal's editorial board members.  Send s to members of the editorial board asking about their experience with the journal.  Predatory journals may list editorial board members who don't know their names are associated with the journal or who have been tricked into joining the board and then can't get their names removed.
Aim and goals of journal. Read the scope of the journal.  If it is too broad or if it sounds too good to be true, look again and question.
Read their peer review policy.  What promises are made in the peer review policy?  Is the peer review process unbelievably quick (such as three weeks)? Is the peer review process blinded?
Check to see what "author fees" are being requested.  When are they due?  Predatory publishers may be unclear on author fees.   A red flag is when the journal doesn't list a fee schedule on its website or states it will notify authors of the fee after their manuscript is accepted for publication. Journals that command excessive fees compared to other open access journals raise conflict of interest concerns. 
Research industry associations.  Check the Directory of Open Access Journals and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association to see if the publishers are members.

17. Other resources to consult
What other factors indicate open access journal quality?
Consult these useful resources:
Outlined guidelines from Grand Valley State University help authors understand legitimate journals.  These guidelines are valid in helping to understand the legitimacy of predatory journals versus legitimate ones.
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) provides a directory of quality peer-reviewed open access journals.
Article in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication: Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators.
Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find impact factors.  JCR is available from the Scott Memorial Library homepage from 2008 to the present.
JournalGuide.com is also a good resource for learning more about individual journals.  In addition to listing information about publication speed, fees, and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per paper) it notes whether the journal has been verified as legitimate.  Verified journals have been confirmed as included in at least one high-value index or vetted by more than one subject specialized index.
To assess a journal or publisher’s credentials, use the Think, Check, Submit checklist, a cross-industry initiative to help researchers identify trusted journals for their research. 

18. http://www.mehrdadjalalian.com/index.php/updates-of-hijacked- journals

19. Thank you.

20. Research misconduct

21. Research Misconduct

22. Federal Laws on Research Misconduct
Public concern over research misconduct initially arose in the early 1980’s.
At the time, research institutions sometimes ignored or covered up potential misconduct problems rather than investigate them.
In December 2000 the Office of Science and Technology Policy adopted a federal policy on research misconduct.

23. DHHS enacted regulation effective 6/15/05
“Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct”
Implements legislative and policy changes applicable to research misconduct that occurred over last several years.
Covers any entity that applies for a research, research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with the Public Health Service (PHS)

24. Purpose of Research Misconduct Policies
Establish definitions for research misconduct
Outline procedures for reporting and investigating misconduct
Provide protection for whistleblowers and persons accused of misconduct

25. Research Misconduct What is it?:
The Department of Health and Human Services defines research misconduct as:
Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research results.
Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them
Falsification: manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is not accurately represented in the record.
Plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving proper credit.

26. Criteria for Research Misconduct
Represents a significant departure from accepted practices
Has been committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and
Can be proven by a preponderance of evidence
What is NOT MISCONDUCT: honest, unintentional error + =
Research Misconduct

27. Top ten “POOR” behaviors
1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements
3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose
products are based on one‘s own research
4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients
that may be interpreted as questionable
5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or
giving due credit (plagiarism)
6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in
connection with one’s own research
7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own
previous research ????
8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject
requirements

28. Top ten behaviors (continued)
9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable
interpretation of data
10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source (falsification)
Other behaviors
11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more
publications
12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit
13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or
proposals
14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs
15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based
on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate
16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects

29. Why does misconduct happen?
Publish or Perish Pressure
Desire to “get ahead”
Personal problems
Character issues
Cultural Differences
???

30. Case Example - Pat J. Palmer
Fabricated 6 interview records
Fabricated claim of Ph.D.
(B.S. and M.S. also)
Falsified that she was
co-author on 10 articles
Did I say I have a Ph.D. in Epidemiology?
Pat Palmer, University of Iowa: engaged in scientific misconduct in research support by NIH grant entitled “Collaborative Linkage Study of Autism” and in grant proposals for the same and “The Genetics of Specific Speech and Language Disorders”.
Fabricated interview records for at least six interviews of autism patient families;
Fabricating her claims for a B.S. from the University of Northern Iowa, a M.S./M.P.H. from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Epidemiology/Bio-statistics from the University of Iowa in biographical sketches that were submitted to NIH in four grant applications
Fabricating her claim that she obtained a Ph.D. in Epidemiology/Bio-statistics from the University of Iowa in the biographical sketches of a training grant application, so she received salary support from July June 1998 for postdoctoral training under NIH training grant.
Falsified that she was co-author of several published articles, by inserting her name or replacing another name with her name on 10 articles listed in her biographical sketch for four NIH grant applications.

31. Example

33. Questions?