CHE: Rigor in research publications

[Kron3007]

It is important to be aware that the predatory publishing world is big. These papers are in a junk journal from a predatory publisher,  Scholink.

Think of it like spam email. The most recent report I read estimated spam as being >60% of total emails. Thankfully we don't see most of them due to good filters. Those filters don't exist for predatory publishers. They will have to be put in place for legitimate publising to thrive.

In what way do you think filters don't exist? At least in the sciences, indexing databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus etc. service as pretty effective filters-- they don't include scam journals, so the average researcher searching for journal articles will never come across those from scam journals.

My impression is that scam journals don't actually care if anyone reads the articles-- their business model is to charge authors to publish.

I mostly use Google scholar, and it is unfiltered.  The problem with filters is that they filter out too much.  Even if something is published in a sketchy journal you should still acknowledge the claims.

For example, you could run into issues if you make a claim as being novel if it has already been made elsewhere, even if you don't like the venue.  The reality is that predatory journals range from complete garbage to ones that are just not yet listed.  Likewise, they have papers that are junk, as well as some decent ones that authors published there for whatever reason.  I assume people sometimes.publish there because some with names similar to well established journals,  and in my field predatory open access journals are cheaper than well established OA journals.  Regardless, you can't just ignore claims or ideas based on the publication venue.

[mamselle]

On the other side of the question, at least some of the offenders are caught:

   https://retractionwatch.com/2022/02/10/more-than-100-of-an-anesthesiologists-papers-retracted/

M.

[Puget]

It is important to be aware that the predatory publishing world is big. These papers are in a junk journal from a predatory publisher,  Scholink.

Think of it like spam email. The most recent report I read estimated spam as being >60% of total emails. Thankfully we don't see most of them due to good filters. Those filters don't exist for predatory publishers. They will have to be put in place for legitimate publising to thrive.

In what way do you think filters don't exist? At least in the sciences, indexing databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus etc. service as pretty effective filters-- they don't include scam journals, so the average researcher searching for journal articles will never come across those from scam journals.

My impression is that scam journals don't actually care if anyone reads the articles-- their business model is to charge authors to publish.

I mostly use Google scholar, and it is unfiltered.  The problem with filters is that they filter out too much.  Even if something is published in a sketchy journal you should still acknowledge the claims.

For example, you could run into issues if you make a claim as being novel if it has already been made elsewhere, even if you don't like the venue.  The reality is that predatory journals range from complete garbage to ones that are just not yet listed.  Likewise, they have papers that are junk, as well as some decent ones that authors published there for whatever reason.  I assume people sometimes.publish there because some with names similar to well established journals,  and in my field predatory open access journals are cheaper than well established OA journals.  Regardless, you can't just ignore claims or ideas based on the publication venue.

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

[Kron3007]

It is important to be aware that the predatory publishing world is big. These papers are in a junk journal from a predatory publisher,  Scholink.

Think of it like spam email. The most recent report I read estimated spam as being >60% of total emails. Thankfully we don't see most of them due to good filters. Those filters don't exist for predatory publishers. They will have to be put in place for legitimate publising to thrive.

In what way do you think filters don't exist? At least in the sciences, indexing databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus etc. service as pretty effective filters-- they don't include scam journals, so the average researcher searching for journal articles will never come across those from scam journals.

My impression is that scam journals don't actually care if anyone reads the articles-- their business model is to charge authors to publish.

I mostly use Google scholar, and it is unfiltered.  The problem with filters is that they filter out too much.  Even if something is published in a sketchy journal you should still acknowledge the claims.

For example, you could run into issues if you make a claim as being novel if it has already been made elsewhere, even if you don't like the venue.  The reality is that predatory journals range from complete garbage to ones that are just not yet listed.  Likewise, they have papers that are junk, as well as some decent ones that authors published there for whatever reason.  I assume people sometimes.publish there because some with names similar to well established journals,  and in my field predatory open access journals are cheaper than well established OA journals.  Regardless, you can't just ignore claims or ideas based on the publication venue.

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

Concepts don't need data to be original.  If someone  publishes a hypothesis, you can no longer publish that same hypothesis as being original, even if their actual study was flawed.  If you fail to cite their original claim, even if it is published in a sketchy journal, that is on you.

As for not being able to tell, Isaw one preditory journal with the exact same name as a real, well respected, journal.  I only knew because I was reading an article and was wondering how that journal published such poor research.  When I searched the doi, it took me to the fake journal.  They are clever and many older, less tech savvy, professors who do good research could fall for it.

Don't take me wrong, I think predatory journals are one of the banes of modern research and a critical problem.  However, a proper literature search should not exclude them entirely.  As you don't trust an academic who dosn't know the difference, I could argue that I don't trust one who can't evaluate the research on its merits and relies on flawed filters.

I will also mention that some publishers (ie MDPI) are listed, but publish a lot of garbage.  Are they preditory?  Kind of...

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

I have recently encountered several decent articles published in MDPI journals by people I personally know.
While I haven't asked them directly, I suspect their decision to publish in these journals was driven by the publication speed.
For people working solely in the industry, waiting a year from submission to publication can be very problematic: one may change job, thus, losing access to the original data / co-authors; long wait times increase probability of not getting client's approvals for the final version (if your original contact there moves on); etc.
So, ignoring these publications completely would limit one's sources to people in stable academic/governmental positions and exclude many actual practitioners.

[Kron3007]

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

I have recently encountered several decent articles published in MDPI journals by people I personally know.
While I haven't asked them directly, I suspect their decision to publish in these journals was driven by the publication speed.
For people working solely in the industry, waiting a year from submission to publication can be very problematic: one may change job, thus, losing access to the original data / co-authors; long wait times increase probability of not getting client's approvals for the final version (if your original contact there moves on); etc.
So, ignoring these publications completely would limit one's sources to people in stable academic/governmental positions and exclude many actual practitioners.

I have published a couple articles in MDPI journals based on similar observations.  Many respected colleagues publish in them and there is good work published there.

However, I did not find their peer review as rigorous as most journals and am confident that poor quality work would also make it through their process without much issue.  The feedback I got was very superficial and editorial in nature. Speed comes at a price....

They charge over a thousand dollars per article and just churn them out.  They spam me to guest host special issue all the time, offering discounts and free publication.  I agree with rewarding reviewers and editors for their time, but question their quality and operations.

[Puget]

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

I have recently encountered several decent articles published in MDPI journals by people I personally know.
While I haven't asked them directly, I suspect their decision to publish in these journals was driven by the publication speed.
For people working solely in the industry, waiting a year from submission to publication can be very problematic: one may change job, thus, losing access to the original data / co-authors; long wait times increase probability of not getting client's approvals for the final version (if your original contact there moves on); etc.
So, ignoring these publications completely would limit one's sources to people in stable academic/governmental positions and exclude many actual practitioners.

I have published a couple articles in MDPI journals based on similar observations.  Many respected colleagues publish in them and there is good work published there.

However, I did not find their peer review as rigorous as most journals and am confident that poor quality work would also make it through their process without much issue.  The feedback I got was very superficial and editorial in nature. Speed comes at a price....

They charge over a thousand dollars per article and just churn them out.  They spam me to guest host special issue all the time, offering discounts and free publication.  I agree with rewarding reviewers and editors for their time, but question their quality and operations.

Nothing you've written here makes me change my mind one bit. In fact, you're making my case for me.
I would never claim originally of a hypothesis, for myself or anything I cite-- that's sort of silly, as someone somewhere may have had the same thought earlier. A hypothesis means very little-- show me the data.
And yes, I can evaluate work quite well thank you very much, but unless I've analyzed the data myself I'm not going to trust what a paper claims that is published in a predatory journal by people that don't know better or don't care (even if it has the same title, surely the unfamiliar submission portal etc. would be a tip-off? I just don't think it is very hard.)

[Kron3007]

I'm going to disagree with this. I would treat any work published in a predatory as being non-peer reviewed and suspect until proven otherwise. I would certainly not cite it. I wouldn't trust science done by someone who doesn't know what the legitimate journals in their field are either.

I have recently encountered several decent articles published in MDPI journals by people I personally know.
While I haven't asked them directly, I suspect their decision to publish in these journals was driven by the publication speed.
For people working solely in the industry, waiting a year from submission to publication can be very problematic: one may change job, thus, losing access to the original data / co-authors; long wait times increase probability of not getting client's approvals for the final version (if your original contact there moves on); etc.
So, ignoring these publications completely would limit one's sources to people in stable academic/governmental positions and exclude many actual practitioners.

I have published a couple articles in MDPI journals based on similar observations.  Many respected colleagues publish in them and there is good work published there.

However, I did not find their peer review as rigorous as most journals and am confident that poor quality work would also make it through their process without much issue.  The feedback I got was very superficial and editorial in nature. Speed comes at a price....

They charge over a thousand dollars per article and just churn them out.  They spam me to guest host special issue all the time, offering discounts and free publication.  I agree with rewarding reviewers and editors for their time, but question their quality and operations.

Nothing you've written here makes me change my mind one bit. In fact, you're making my case for me.
I would never claim originally of a hypothesis, for myself or anything I cite-- that's sort of silly, as someone somewhere may have had the same thought earlier. A hypothesis means very little-- show me the data.
And yes, I can evaluate work quite well thank you very much, but unless I've analyzed the data myself I'm not going to trust what a paper claims that is published in a predatory journal by people that don't know better or don't care (even if it has the same title, surely the unfamiliar submission portal etc. would be a tip-off? I just don't think it is very hard.)

Yes, poor wording on my part, but If you are writing an intro or discussion section and claim/imply something is novel or untested (otherwise why would you do the study...), when similar experiments have been published in a predatory journal, you have failed in due diligence.  In my opinion, it is your role to acknowledge the previous work and highlight flaws or limitations that justify your work. 

Personally, my students submit their papers so I generally don't see the interface directly.  If they tell me they are submitting to journal X, I assume it is the real one (generally a safe assumption) You can judge all you want, but many solid researchers have ended up publishing in questionable journals for various reasons (this is on them).

Finally, how do you deal with questionable journals that are listed, but are known to have issues (ie MDPI series)?  How do you define a predatory journal?  I have seen garbage work in nature, and good work in MDPI journals.  I see good researchers publishing in MDPI journals that I know from experience have substandard peer review.  Their work is still good, but the journal fails the smell test and also have low quality papers


  I just think you are oversimplifying a complex problem, but we will have to agree to disagree