skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
Predatory journals and publishers are a growing concern in the scholarly publishing arena. As one type of attempt to address this increasingly important issue, numerous individuals, associations, and companies have begun curating journal watchlists or journal safelists. This study uses a qualitative content analysis to explore the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated by scholarly publishing journal watchlists and safelists to better understand the content of these lists, as well as the larger controversies that continue to surround the phenomenon that has come to be known as predatory publishing. Four watchlists and ten safelists were analyzed through an examination of their published mission statements and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Notable differences that emerged include the remaining influence of librarian Jeffrey Beall in the watchlists, and the explicit disavowal of his methods for the safelists, along with a growing recognition that the “list” approach may not fully address systemic aspects of predatory publishing that go beyond the individual author's ethical decision-making agency.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1926348
PAR ID:
10196684
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of academic librarianship
Volume:
46
Issue:
6
ISSN:
0099-1333
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1-10
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, Learned Publishing)
    Abstract Young researchers are often excluded from the scholarly processes of peer‐review and publication, which are cornerstones of scholarly work. TheJournal of Emerging Investigatorsis an open access journal dedicated to publishing the research of middle and high school students. We surveyed student authors before and after they participated in the peer‐review and publication process of their scientific articles. Following peer‐review and publication, students report gains in their confidence and self‐efficacy in science, and increased feelings of identity and belonging in science. Our findings demonstrate that even the youngest scholars are capable of participating in the publication process, and our data suggest that participation in the process has positive outcomes. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, American Psychologist)
    Despite institutional efforts, growth in the number of faculty of color has largely plateaued, limiting research innovation and other benefits of diversity. In this article, we seek to understand structural barriers to faculty equity by (a) detailing a theory of epistemic exclusion within academia and (b) applying the theory of epistemic exclusion to the specific context of faculty departmental reviews of scholarly research (e.g., annual review, promotion and tenure review). Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation that is rooted in disciplinary biases about the qualities of rigorous research and identity-based biases about the competence of marginalized group members. These biases work in tandem to systemically and disproportionately exclude marginalized scholars (e.g., people of color, women) from the academy. In the context of faculty departmental reviews, epistemic exclusion can happen in formal systems of evaluation through criteria, metric, and application exclusion. It can also occur informally during interpersonal interactions and communications through legitimacy, contribution, and comprehension exclusion. In this article, we detail each of these types of exclusion, how they may interact with each other, and their consequences. We assert that epistemic exclusion threatens the diversification of academia and offer suggestions for equitable evaluation practices and reducing epistemic exclusion within higher education broadly. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; (, Nucleic Acids Research)
    Abstract Human gene research generates new biology insights with translational potential, yet few studies have considered the health of the human gene literature. The accessibility of human genes for targeted research, combined with unreasonable publication pressures and recent developments in scholarly publishing, may have created a market for low-quality or fraudulent human gene research articles, including articles produced by contract cheating organizations known as paper mills. This review summarises the evidence that paper mills contribute to the human gene research literature at scale and outlines why targeted gene research may be particularly vulnerable to systematic research fraud. To raise awareness of targeted gene research from paper mills, we highlight features of problematic manuscripts and publications that can be detected by gene researchers and/or journal staff. As improved awareness and detection could drive the further evolution of paper mill-supported publications, we also propose changes to academic publishing to more effectively deter and correct problematic publications at scale. In summary, the threat of paper mill-supported gene research highlights the need for all researchers to approach the literature with a more critical mindset, and demand publications that are underpinned by plausible research justifications, rigorous experiments and fully transparent reporting. 
    more » « less
  4. (, AMIA2023)
    Clinical trials are indispensable in developing new treatments, but they face obstacles in patient recruitment and retention, hindering the enrollment of necessary participants. To tackle these challenges, deep learning frameworks have been created to match patients to trials. These frameworks calculate the similarity between patients and clinical trial eligibility criteria, considering the discrepancy between inclusion and exclusion criteria. Recent studies have shown that these frameworks outperform earlier approaches. However, deep learning models may raise fairness issues in patient-trial matching when certain sensitive groups of individuals are underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to incomplete or inaccurate data and potential harm. To tackle the issue of fairness, this work proposes a fair patient-trial matching framework by generating a patient-criterion level fairness constraint. The proposed framework considers the inconsistency between the embedding of inclusion and exclusion criteria among patients of different sensitive groups. The experimental results on real-world patient-trial and patient-criterion matching tasks demonstrate that the proposed framework can successfully alleviate the predictions that tend to be biased. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, Harvard Dataverse)
    Detailed information and published mission or aims scope for journals in which 3 or more publications from the dataset Publications associated with SES grants, 2000-2015 appeared. CSV file with 10 columns and names in header row: journal is the name of the scientific journal or outlet in which at least 3 papers were published (text); number of papers is the number of papers from the dataset Publications associated with SES grants, 2000-2015 published in the journal (integer); Impact factor is the most recent available Impact Factor for the journal as of March 2020 (float); Discipline is the broad disciplinary category to which the journal belongs, as identified by the authors of this dataset (text); Stated aimsscope is the text of the journal aimsscope as provided on the journal website (text); Mission includes interdisciplinary? categorizes whether the stated aimsscope of the journal includes dissemination of interdisciplinary research (Y indicates the stated aimsscope explicitly include interdisciplinary research, I indicates that publication of interdisciplinary research is implicit but not directly stated in the aimsscope, N indicates there is no evidence that interdisciplinary research are part of the aimsscope of the journal); Mission includes humans/social? categorizes whether the stated aimsscope of the journal includes dissemination of research about human or social systems (Y indicates the stated aimsscope include some mention of human impacts, social systems, etc., N indicates there is no evidence that research on human or social systems are part of the aimsscope of the journal) Gutcheck Interdisciplinary? is an evaluation of whether the journal publishes interdisciplinary research as a matter of course, as judged by the authors of the dataset (Y indicates the journal publishes interdisciplinary research s a matter of course, N indicates journal does not tend to publish interdisciplinary research, kinda to indicate some history of publishing interdisciplinary research that may not be a major focus of published content. Forward slashes between values show where the dataset authors differed in their assessments.); Gutcheck CNHS? is an evaluation of whether the journal publishes research on socio-environmental systems (social-ecological systems, coupled natural and human systems) as a matter of course, as judged by the authors of the dataset (Y indicates the journal publishes research on socio-environmental systems as a matter of course, N indicates journal does not tend to publish research on socio-environmental systems , kinda to indicate some history of publishing research on socio-environmental systems that may not be a major focus of published content. Forward slashes between values show where the dataset authors differed in their assessments.); Notes provide any other notes added by the authors of this dataset during our processing of these data (text). 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email