Размышления о текущей редакционной политике компании Springer Nature в отношении «хищнических» журналов и ссылок на публикации в таких журналах

Несмотря на свое видное положение как одного из ведущих коммерческих издателей научных журналов, и распространяющихся по подписке, и открытого доступа (OA), а также членство в Комитете по публикационной этике (COPE), Директории журналов открытого доступа (DOAJ) и Ассоциации научных издателей открытого доступа (OASPA), Springer Nature можно критиковать за нечеткий подход в своей редакционной политике в отношении «хищнических» публикаций. Предостерегая авторов и/или редакторов от цитирования статей, опубликованных в «хищнических» журналах, Springer Nature предлагает в своей политике не совсем корректные рекомендации, поскольку ограничивает круг таких журналов открытым доступом. Очевидно, эта позиция не учитывает возможность, что журналы по подписке также могут оказаться «хищническими». Кроме того, редакционная политика Springer Nature не объясняет, с какими именно журналами авторам и редакторам следует быть осторожными, поскольку не ясна сама природа определения «хищничества» журналов открытого доступа. Нельзя также не заметить, что политика Springer Nature сформулирована расплывчато: у нее нет адекватного документального выражения, за ней не закреплено авторство. Эти аспекты снижают полезность такой редакционной политики и делают ее цели непрозрачными, а именно – превращают ее в сборник советов, которые якобы защищают редакторов и авторов. Автор утверждает, что редакционная политика Springer Nature в отношении «хищнических» публикаций в их нынешнем виде двусмысленна, и, если оставить ее без изменений, она может породить путаницу среди ученых и редакторов научных журналов Springer Nature, а также привести к ошибкам. В этой связи научное сообщество рискует прислушаться к советам, которые можно легко обратить во вред. Все это может повлечь оговаривание и / или порицание ученых, носящее неизбирательный характер, в том числе тех, которые связаны с журналами под эгидой Springer Nature. Принимая во внимание искреннее намерение Springer Nature предостеречь редакторов и авторов от цитирования статей, опубликованных в подозрительных научных изданиях, автор утверждает, что настоящую редакционную политику следует либо скорректировать, чтобы она опиралось на более четкие критерии, нежели сейчас, либо отвергнуть как не соответствующую поставленным перед ней задачам. В новую версию редакционной политики следует включить окончательный перечень журналов, определенных как «хищнические», а также установить и прописать параметры определения «хищничества» как такового. Критика, представленная в этой статье, направлена на стимулирование дискуссии среди других редакторов и издателей, в особенности среди членов COPE.

1. Ojala M., Reynolds R., Johnson K.G. Predatory journal challenges and responses. The Serials Librarian. 2020;78:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894

2. Strinzel M., Severin A., Milzow K., Egger M. Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio. 2019;10:e00411-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/

3. mBio.00411-19; erratum: mBio. 2021;12:e03108-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.03108-20; corrigendum: mBio. 2022;13:e0130522. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01305-22

4. Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27:273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029

5. Kimotho S. G. The storm around Beall’s List: A review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers. African Research Review. 2019;13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1

6. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kendall G. Academia should stop using Beall’s Lists and review their use in previous studies. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 2023;4:39–47. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04

7. Koerber A., Starkey J. C., Ardon-Dryer K., Cummins R. G., Eko L., Kee K. F. A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing? The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102236

8. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Moradzadeh M., Adjei K. O. K., Owusu-Ansah C. M., Balehegn M., Faúndez E. I., Janodia M. D., Al-Khatib A. An integrated paradigm shift to deal with “predatory” publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481

9. Bisaccio M. Cabells’ journal whitelist and blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing. 2018;31:243–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1164

10. Dony C., Raskinet M., Renaville F., Simon S., Thirion P. How reliable and useful is Cabell’s Blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly. 2020;30:1–38. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339

11. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Moradzadeh M., Yamada Y., Dunleavy D. J., Tsigaris, P. Cabells’ Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2023;49:102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659

12. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist. Open Information Science. 2022;6:136–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0136

13. Mimouni M., Braun E., Mimouni F. B., Mimouni D., Blumenthal, E. Z. Beall’s list removed: What stands between us and open access predators? American Journal of Medicine. 2017;130:e371–e372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.040

14. Strielkowski W. Predatory publishing: What are the alternatives to Beall’s list? American Journal of Medicine. 2018;131:333–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054

15. Kendall G. Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1374

16. Krawczyk F., Kulczycki E. How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2021;47:102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

17. Coates A. Academic journals’ usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1430

18. Rivera H., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Retractions, fake peer review, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2021;36:e165. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165

19. Pérez-Neri I., Pineda C., Sandoval H. Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clinical Rheumatology. 2022;41:2241–2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9

20. Gallent Torres C. Editorial misconduct: The case of online predatory journals. Heliyon. 2022;8:e08999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08999

21. Sureda-Negre J., Calvo-Sastre A., Comas-Forgas R. Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:441–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1450

22. Gupta B. B., Arachchilage N. A. G., Psannis K. E. Defending against phishing attacks: Taxonomy of methods, current issues and future directions. Telecommunication Systems. 2018;67:247–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-017-0334-z

23. Dadkhah M., Maliszewski T., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2016;12:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x

24. Abalkina A. Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics. 2021;126:7123–7148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0

25. Trejo-Pech C. O., Thach S. V., Thompson J. M., Manley J. Violations of standard practices by predatory economics journals. Serials Review. 2021;47:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1959183

26. Walters W. H. The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall’s List of potentially predatory publishers and journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102484

27. Laine C., Winker M. A. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27:285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031

28. Shamseer L., Moher D., Maduekwe O., Turner L., Barbour V., Burch R., Clark J., Galipeau J., Roberts J., Shea B.J. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Ccan you tell the difference? A crosssectional comparison. BMC Medicine. 2017;15:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

29. Cobey K. D., Lalu M. M., Skidmore B., Ahmadzai N., Grudniewicz A., Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research. 2018;7:1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2

30. Cobey K. D., Grudniewicz A., Lalu M. M., Rice D. B., Raffoul H., Moher D. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: A survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026516. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516

31. Cukier S., Helal L., Rice D. B., Pupkaite J., Ahmadzai N., Wilson M., Skidmore B., Lalu M. M., Moher D. Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: A systematic review. BMC Medicine. 2020;18:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1

32. Cukier S., Lalu M., Bryson G. L., Cobey K. D., Grudniewicz A., Moher D. Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e035561. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561

33. Leonard M., Stapleton S., Collins P., Selfe T. K., Cataldo T. Ten simple rules for avoiding predatory publishing scams. PLoS Computational Biology. 2021;17:e1009377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009377

34. Oermann M. H., Nicoll L. H., Carter-Templeton H., Owens J. K., Wrigley J., Ledbetter L. S., Chinn P. L. How to identify predatory journals in a search: Precautions for nurses. Nursing. 2022;52:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000823280.93554.1a

35. Kendall G., Linacre S. Predatory journals: Revisiting Beall’s research. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2022;38:530–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09888-z

36. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dunleavy D. J., Moradzadeh M., Eykens J. A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of journals and publishers. Scientometrics. 2021;126:8589–8616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3

37. Dunleavy D. J. Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2022;12:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8

38. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Junk science, junk journals, and junk publishing management: Risk to science’s credibility. Philosophia. 2023;51:1701–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0

39. Moed H. F., Lopez-Illescas C., Guerrero-Bote V. P., de Moya-Anegon F. Journals in Beall’s list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1428

40. Frandsen T. F. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing. 2019;32:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214

41. Frandsen T. F. Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1489

42. Mills D., Inoue K. Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325

43. Siler K. Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2021;71:1386–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24339

44. Ng J. Y., Haynes R. B. “Evidence-based checklists” for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An analysis and proposal for moving forward. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;138:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.015

45. Rupp M., Anastasopoulou L., Wintermeyer E., Malhaan D., El Khassawna T., Heiss C. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics. 2019;43:509–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1

46. Manley S. Predatory journals on trial. Allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2019;50:183–200. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.3.02

47. Siler K., Vincent-Lamarre P., Sugimoto C. R., Larivière V. Predatory publishers’ latest scam: Bootlegged and rebranded papers. Nature. 2021;598:563–565. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

48. Grudniewicz A., Moher D., Cobey K. D., Bryson G. L., Cukier S., Allen K., Ardern C., Balcom L., Barros T., Berger M., Ciro J. B., Cugusi L., Donaldson M. R., Egger M., Graham I. D., Hodgkinson M., Khan K. M., Mabizela M., Manca A., Milzow K., Mouton J., Muchenje M., Olijhoek T., Ommaya A., Patwardhan B., Poff D., Proulx L., Rodger M., Severin A., Strinzel M., Sylos-Labini M., Tamblyn R., van Niekerk M., Wicherts J. M., Lalu M. M. Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576:210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y

49. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Tsigaris P., Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: an assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2019;45:102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071

50. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Tsigaris P. Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070

51. Ndungu M. W. Scholarly journal publishing standards, policies and guidelines. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:612–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1410

52. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Al-Khatib A., Tsigaris P. Challenges facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) as a reliable source of open access publishing venues. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences. 2018;55:349–358. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55(3).e001.BC.BE

53. Cortegiani A., Ippolito M., Ingoglia G., Manca A., Cugusi L., Severin A., Strinzel M., Panzarella V., Campisi G., Manoj L., Gregoretti C., Einav S., Moher D., Giarratano A. Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: The GhoS(t)copus Project. F1000Research. 2020;9:415. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23847.2

54. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2023;79:601–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009

55. Munn Z., Barker T., Stern C., Pollock D., Ross-White A., Klugar M., Wiechula R., Aromataris E., Shamseer L. Should I include studies from “predatory” journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2021;19:1915–1923. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00138

56. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kendall G. Mis(-classification) of 17,721 journals by an artificial intelligence predatory journal detector. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2023;39:263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09956-y

57. Yamada Y., Teixeira da Silva J. A. A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity. 2022;56:4075–4087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3

58. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 2022;28:383–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2039242

59. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kimotho S. G. Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102418

60. Chirico F. “Predatory journals” or “predatory scholars”? The essential role of the peer review process. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2017;8:186–188. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2017.1082

61. Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2019;25:293–321. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5

62. Olivarez J. D., Bales S., Sare L., van Duinkerken W. Format aside: applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College and Research Libraries. 2018;79:52–67. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52

63. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Al-Khatib A., Tsigaris P. Spam emails in academia: Issues and costs. Scientometrics. 2020;122:1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03315-5

64. Clements J. C., Daigle R. M., Froehlich H. E. Predator in the pool? A quantitative evaluation of nonindexed open access journals in aquaculture research. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018;5:106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00106

65. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Citations and gamed metrics: Academic integrity lost. Academic Questions. 2021;34:96–99. https://doi.org/10.51845/34s.1.18

66. Siler K., Larivière V. Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation. Research Policy. 2022;51:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608

67. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2022;38:760–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0

68. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? International Orthopaedics. 2020;44:2193–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w

69. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Al-Khatib A. How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2021;16:139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.01.008

70. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is the continued claim of indexing in Publons by journals a predatory publishing characteristic? Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 2023;52:448–449. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.06.006

71. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. Publication history: A double DOI-based method to store and/or monitor information about published and corrected academic literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2022;53:85–108. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.2017-0017

72. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Conflicts of interest arising from simultaneous service by editors of competing journals or publishers. Publications. 2021;9:6. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010006

73. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Should editors with multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct serve on journal editor boards? European Science Editing. 2022;48:e95926. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e95926

74. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Vuong Q-H. Editors with multiple retractions, but who serve on journal editorial boards: Case studies. Epistēmēs Metron Logos. 2023;9:1–8. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.33935

75. Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;23:947–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8

76. Nishikawa-Pacher A. Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach. Journal of Documentation. 2022;78:450–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083

77. Teixeira da Silva J. A., Fassin Y. Reflection on the Springer Nature initial public offering attempts in an evolving academic publishing market. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:448–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1453

78. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Tumor Biology’s struggle to survive: A tough lesson for cancer research journals. Forum of Clinical Oncology. 2022;13:23–25. https://doi.org/10.2478/fco-2022-0001