SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 3Taylor & Francis
Just to clarify…defining Open Access
OA content still undergoes peer review
final article (Version of Record)
Article made freely available online (often but not always
after payment of an article publishing charge (APC))
archiving / deposit of an earlier version of an article in a
1) making content freely available online to read
2) Making content reusable by third parties with little or no restrictions
A ‘profusion of confusion’
Myriad terms used to define Open Access, often contradictory!
We now talk about Gold and Green, but each have different shades….
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 4Taylor & Francis
Defining OA cont.
Focus on clarity – our video defines Gold and Green OA in 90 seconds
See www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess for more OA
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 6Taylor & Francis
• "Predatory publishers use deception to appear
legitimate, entrapping researchers into submitting
their work and then charging them to publish it" –
• Internationally, increasing need to publish quota
of research for graduation/promotion
– Demand exceeding supply (legitimate journals)
– ‘entrepreneurs’ seeing excess demand, providing a
• Able to exploit this situation via 2 main routes:
– Victims: Lack of author awareness, esp. dev. countries
– Co-conspirators: knowingly wanting immediate,
• Aggressive or predatory in soliciting submissions 6
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 7Taylor & Francis
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 9Taylor & Francis
How do I differentiate them?
• Apply a rigorous academic process in selecting
– Interrogate info provided: does it translate into action,
– Do you frequently read the journal? Have you cited it?
– Do leading scholars in the field publish in it, not just
from your own institution or network?
• What value do they add? What are you paying
• What do reputable journals/publishers do beyond
– Statement of publishing ethics, COPE membership
– Marketing and discoverability for your paper
– Digital content preservation, (C)LOCKSS 9
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 10Taylor & Francis
Trust, Authority and Quality
• Validation of integrity of scholarly research,
reinforced by: Journal brand; Editors and Board
expertise; Publisher brand; and Society brand
– Society and Publisher brands increasingly important
marks of trust, authority and peer review standards,
scientific authority, especially in Open/Public Access
– Journal brand still key signifier of authority, trust and
quality standards enshrined in rigorous peer review.
• New peer review processes being experimented
– pilots will provide evidence of popularity and
effectiveness of new models
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 12Taylor & Francis
Impact on you as researcher
• Longer term reputation and career prospects
sacrificed for immediate gains.
– No academic gain (no peer review, value added)
• Permanent stain on your academic reputation
• Even if your research is sound, it will likely be
disregarded by the academic community if
published in a predatory journal
• Waste of your research funding – could be
held accountable by your funding agency
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 13Taylor & Francis
Impact on the broader community
• Every good paper published in a predatory
journal is one fewer keeping legitimate
• No academic contribution being made, which
no-one will then build upon & publish new
• Similarly: unethical practices such as using
local journals for free manuscript
improvement & then retracting a paper to
• Authors are fuelling this damaging fire
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 14Taylor & Francis
Damages the scholarly journal
publishing value chain
No opportunity for
PEER REVIEW & VALUE
after peer review,
New research building upon what was published
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 16Taylor & Francis
Main points to carry forward
• Don't blame the predatory journals - think
critically and engage in your research community.
• Uphold publishing ethics yourself, don't do
anything to compromise that as it will reflect on
• Not black and white - there is no single identifier
or single list that can be used
• Always publish in journals that uphold
international academic standards and have a
statement of publishing ethics
Predatory Journals March and August 2015 screen 17Taylor & Francis
Sources and useful reading:
• How to target a journal that’s right for your research. Ravi
Murugesan, SciDevNet, 15 Dec 2014.
• Scholarly Open Access: Critical Analysis of Scholarly Open-
Access Publishing. Jeffrey Beall. http://scholarlyoa.com/
• Predatory Publishing. Jeffrey Beall, The Scientist, 1 Aug
• Predatory publishers: the bane of open access publishing.
Carina van Zyl, CSIR, 20 October 2014.
Mariette Enslin & Sibabalwe Oscar Masinyana
Taylor & Francis Africa