Cargando…

Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices

The preponderance of journals with dubious publishing practices has resulted in a new term in academic publishing: predatory journals. Although there is no standard definition, predatory journals generally subvert the traditional peer-reviewed system for financial gain. Common practices of predatory...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Happe, Laura E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10391221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32715959
http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.8.956
_version_ 1785082656487112704
author Happe, Laura E.
author_facet Happe, Laura E.
author_sort Happe, Laura E.
collection PubMed
description The preponderance of journals with dubious publishing practices has resulted in a new term in academic publishing: predatory journals. Although there is no standard definition, predatory journals generally subvert the traditional peer-reviewed system for financial gain. Common practices of predatory journals include publishing almost all submissions, a lack of transparency about publication fees, aggressive solicitation of contributors irrespective of relevant expertise and credentials, and even closely mimicking names of reputable journals—effectively acting as a decoy to attract authors and readers. Left unchecked, these journals have the potential to threaten the evidence base relied on by managed care pharmacists. Given the importance of peer-reviewed literature to managed care pharmacy practice, how is one to discern between a predatory journal and a reputable one? There are 5 key practices that distinguish reputable journals. First, reputable journals rely on peer reviewers who are experts in their respective fields to carefully review submitted manuscripts for suitability to publish. Second, reputable journals have a board of experts in relevant areas that serve in an advisory capacity to the editorial staff. Third, reputable journals follow recognized publishing standards to guide their policies, which range from determining authorship, to journal management, to handling allegations of misconduct. Fourth, reputable journals are transparent and fair about their levied fees, avoiding any real or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, reputable journals are indexed in searchable databases that have quality selection criteria for inclusion. These 5 criteria should be used by managed care authors and researchers when determining where to publish their papers and whether to serve as an editorial board member or peer reviewer when requested. Studies published in journals meeting these criteria can be deemed as reputable and suitable for review by managed care and health policymakers. It is essential that everyone involved in producing and using peer-reviewed literature is informed about the threat of predatory publishing and avoids engaging in any activities with these journals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10391221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103912212023-08-02 Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices Happe, Laura E. J Manag Care Spec Pharm Viewpoints The preponderance of journals with dubious publishing practices has resulted in a new term in academic publishing: predatory journals. Although there is no standard definition, predatory journals generally subvert the traditional peer-reviewed system for financial gain. Common practices of predatory journals include publishing almost all submissions, a lack of transparency about publication fees, aggressive solicitation of contributors irrespective of relevant expertise and credentials, and even closely mimicking names of reputable journals—effectively acting as a decoy to attract authors and readers. Left unchecked, these journals have the potential to threaten the evidence base relied on by managed care pharmacists. Given the importance of peer-reviewed literature to managed care pharmacy practice, how is one to discern between a predatory journal and a reputable one? There are 5 key practices that distinguish reputable journals. First, reputable journals rely on peer reviewers who are experts in their respective fields to carefully review submitted manuscripts for suitability to publish. Second, reputable journals have a board of experts in relevant areas that serve in an advisory capacity to the editorial staff. Third, reputable journals follow recognized publishing standards to guide their policies, which range from determining authorship, to journal management, to handling allegations of misconduct. Fourth, reputable journals are transparent and fair about their levied fees, avoiding any real or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, reputable journals are indexed in searchable databases that have quality selection criteria for inclusion. These 5 criteria should be used by managed care authors and researchers when determining where to publish their papers and whether to serve as an editorial board member or peer reviewer when requested. Studies published in journals meeting these criteria can be deemed as reputable and suitable for review by managed care and health policymakers. It is essential that everyone involved in producing and using peer-reviewed literature is informed about the threat of predatory publishing and avoids engaging in any activities with these journals. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10391221/ /pubmed/32715959 http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.8.956 Text en Copyright © 2020, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Viewpoints
Happe, Laura E.
Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title_full Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title_fullStr Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title_full_unstemmed Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title_short Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices
title_sort distinguishing predatory from reputable publishing practices
topic Viewpoints
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10391221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32715959
http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.8.956
work_keys_str_mv AT happelaurae distinguishingpredatoryfromreputablepublishingpractices