FEATURE than two dozen publishers , but by February 2016 , there were more than 900 possible predatory publishers . Other agencies try to safeguard potential authors from being taken advantage of , but most take a different tactic by keeping “ whitelists ” of legitimate OA publishing outfits . These include the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ( OASPA ), the Directory of Open Access Journals ( DOAJ ), the Global Open Access List ( GOAL ), and the Committee on Publication Ethics ( COPE ).
Follow the Money
Aside from the ethical concerns of publishing data or information that have not been peer-reviewed and / or deemed scientifically valid , predatory journals can also be identified by their steep article processing charges ( APCs ).
In the traditional journal model , the end-user pays for access to papers , either through subscription fees or on a pay-perpaper basis . In the OA model , the cost of publication is shifted from the consumer to the producer , through APCs . Essentially , authors pay for OA .
Legitimate OA publishers also charge APCs , but those fees financially support editorial services , the peer-review process , and housing those articles ( either through website hosting or printing ). And , overall , the APCs for above-board OA journals are deployed honestly , and the charges they levy are not exactly usurious , according to a 2015 study by Heather Morrison , MSLS , PhD , assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of Ottawa in Canada , and colleagues . 6
Dr . Morrison and co-authors analyzed the APCs charged by journals listed in the DOAJ in 2014 , for a dataset consisting of more than 1,400 journals . The average APC among journals was $ 1,221 , and the average APC for an individual article was $ 937 , with prices ranging from $ 1 to $ 4,114 . “ The vast majority of journals ( 80 %) were found to offer one or more variations on pricing , such as discounts for authors from mid- to low-income countries , differential pricing based on article type , institutional or society membership , and / or optional charges for extras such as English language – editing services or fast track of articles ,” they reported .
At the San Francisco-based Public Library of Science ( PLOS ), APCs range from about $ 1,500 to $ 3,000 , and researchers with financial hardships can apply for fee support from the organization ; APCs netted a revenue of $ 42,604,000 in 2015 . 4 At the Molecular Diversity Preservation International and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute ( MDPI ), an OA journal platform based in Basel , Switzerland , APCs vary depending on the specific journal ; for one journal , the APC runs around $ 1,800 , while , at others , there is no APC . 5
Martyn Rittman , PhD , chief production officer for MDPI , explained that APCs at MDPI are calculated based on how established a journal is . For a new journal , there is no APC , while journals with a longer track record , and a higher impact factor , will carry an APC . “ The average APC at MDPI in 2015 was less than $ 1,000 , which is very competitive when compared with other large OA publishers .”
Somewhat surprisingly , predatory journals usually charge much lower APCs than legitimate journals : a 2015 analysis found that the average APC among a sample of predatory journals included on Beall ’ s list was $ 178 per article . 7 However , because predatory journals tend to publish articles indiscriminately and accept higher volumes of articles than legitimate journals , the fact becomes less surprising – it is a question of quantity over quality .
The Blacklist : Good , Bad , or Both ?
Scholarly OA is often called a “ blacklist .” Writing about “ Beall ’ s List ,” Richard Poynder , moderator of GOAL , pointed out that the list is maintained by a single individual , who has been “ frequently ( and often bitterly ) criticized for including publishers without sufficient evidence that they are indeed predatory .” 8
In 2013 , for example , MDPI came under fire from Scholarly OA for allegedly engaging in predatory publishing practices . Among several charges leveled at MDPI were claims that the OA publisher added Nobel Prize winners to its editorial board without their approval , and that it regularly published “ controversial articles ” to boost the citations to its journals .
In a lengthy 2014 memo posted on its website , MDPI refuted all of Mr . Beall ’ s charges against it as a predatory publisher , including a note that OASPA had confirmed MDPI met its criteria as a legitimate OA publisher . 9
In 2015 , MDPI was removed from the Scholarly OA website list and , to date , has remained off the list .
In that same memo , MDPI declared , “ We wish to conclude by expressing that Mr . Beall ’ s blacklist in its current form is unnecessary and unreliable . On the one hand , there are professional indexing databases operating as watchdogs of journal quality . Professional databases such as the Web of Science , Scopus , or PubMed can be used as whitelists of good journals .”
When asked for his specific thoughts on the blacklist set-up , Dr . Rittman referenced the 2014 MDPI memo , but he also told ASH Clinical News that his organization holds that “ the majority of [ OA ] publishers are acting ethically and to accepted standards , and most scholars are able to distinguish between ethical and questionable publishers .”
The reality is that any successful enterprise is going to have people who will try to take advantage of that success . Catriona MacCallum , PhD , senior advocacy manager at PLOS , questioned how widespread predatory publishing is , commenting that , as with any business , there are always going to be “ bad apples ” whose impact is inflated
“ People thought they were supporting a new journal , and that it was legitimate and above-board . Then , the red flags started to go up .”
FTC Versus OMICS Group
On August 25 , 2016 , the FTC filed a complaint ( Case No . 2:16-cv-02022 ) in Washington , DC , District Court against the OMICS Group , Inc ., of Hyderabad , India , and two affiliated companies ( iMedPub LLC and Conference Series LLC ) for engaging in “ predatory ” publishing practices . OMICS publishes a number of hematology-related journals , including Blood & Lymph , Blood Disorders & Transfusion , Haemotology & Thromboembolic Diseases , Leukemia , and Clinical & Experimental Oncology .
Charges leveled at OMICS by the FTC included :
• The publisher does not make it clear that a “ significant ” APC will be required until after accepting an article . OMICS will not allow the individual to withdraw the article , thus making the paper ineligible for publication elsewhere .
• The publisher describes its journals as having a high impact factor , but is alleged to calculate its own impact scores , which are not disclosed to consumers .
• The publisher claims that its journals follow “ rigorous peer-review practices ” overseen by editorial boards that are manned by prominent academics ; however , many articles are published with little to no peer review , and numerous individuals cited as editors have not agreed to be affiliated with the journals .
Lawyers for the OMICS Group submitted a letter denying any deceptive or predatory behavior . According to the case filing , OMICS claimed that :
• It is made clear on their website that an APC will be charged ( which range from $ 350 to $ 2,719 ). The publisher also states that articles can be withdrawn free of charge if the request is issued within a 10-day submission period . After that time period , “ withdrawal-related APCs are only requested when an article passes through the processing … and authors are requested to pay to
— IOANA RUSU , JD
cover the expenses that are incurred by the publisher .”
• They follow a “ single-blind peerreview process for most of the journals ,” and that “ the peer review is done by the esteemed scholars who work voluntarily .” Also , they obtain consent letters from any and all editorial board members , and those letters are available for public review .
• The OMICS group uses “ other metric / measures for journal credibility [ than impact factors ],” including the Index Copernicus values and H-Index .
The FTC receives numerous complaints about predatory companies through individual consumers , investigative articles in newspapers , referrals from state agencies or other federal agencies , or organizations such as the Better Business Bureau . The complaints are then taken in aggregate and reviewed before the FTC decides to take action .
“ Like many federal agencies , we have a limited amount of resources , so we have to decide if a case rises to a level of problematic activity to which we can dedicate those resources ,” Ms . Rusu explained . “ Predatory publishing is a new phenomenon for us . They are taking something that is inherently based on good principles , and manipulating it in such a way that their primary goal is profit .”
What the FTC cannot do is create a policy as to how OA publishing can and should operate . “ We can ’ t set up a system for weeding out good versus bad journals or set up standards for how the peer-review process should work – that ’ s not our role ,” she said . “ We can tell a publisher , ‘ You told your authors that the articles are peer reviewed , and they are not , so that ’ s a lie . You can ’ t deceive consumers .’”
On September 22 , 2016 , OMICS filed a motion ( Case 2:16-cv-02022- GMN-VCF ) to dismiss the FTC ’ s preliminary injunction , but Ms . Rusu was not able to comment on ongoing litigation .
ASHClinicalNews . org ASH Clinical News
31