Vnitr Lek 2019, 65(5):338-347 | DOI: 10.36290/vnl.2019.061

Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports

Jiří Kratochvíl1,*, Lukáš Plch1, Eva Koriťáková2
1 University Campus Library, Masaryk University Brno
2 Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Brno

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received ≤ 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals ≥ 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

Keywords: biomedical journals; ethical rules of scientific publishing; Journal Citation Reports; open access; predatory journals; Web of Science

Received: June 18, 2018; Accepted: August 28, 2018; Published: May 1, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kratochvíl J, Plch L, Koriťáková E. Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Vnitr Lek. 2019;65(5):338-347. doi: 10.36290/vnl.2019.061.
Download citation

References

  1. Baruch Y, Ghobadian A, Özbilgin M. Open Access - the Wrong Response to a Complex Question: The Case of the Finch Report. Br J Manag 2013; 24: 147-155. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12016>. Go to original source...
  2. European Commission. H2020 Programme: Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (version 3.2). Brussels: European Commission 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf>.
  3. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PloS One 2010; 5(10): e13636. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Harvey HB, Weinstein DF. Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature. Acad Med 2017; 92(2): 150-151. Available on DOI: <http://dx.dpo.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001521>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Kahn M. Sharing your scholarship while avoiding the predators: guidelines for medical physicists interested in open access publishing. Med Phys 2014; 41(7): 070401-070401. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4883836>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Nelson N, Huffman J. Predatory Journals in Library Databases: How Much Should We Worry? Ser Libr 2015; 69(2): 169-192. Available on DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782>. Go to original source...
  7. COPE. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors, version 4. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics 2011. [cit. 2017-05-22]. Available on WWW: <https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf>.
  8. DOAJ. Information for publishers. Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-05-22]. Available on WWW: <https://doaj.org/publishers>.
  9. OASPA. Membership Criteria. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. c2017 [cit. 2017-05-22]. Available on WWW: <https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>.
  10. WAME. WAME Professionalism Code of Conduct. World Association of Medical Editors. 2016 [cit. 2017-12-10]. Available on WWW: <http://www.wame.org/wame-professionalism-code-of-conduct>.
  11. Wicherts JM. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS One 2016; 11(1). [cit. 2017-05-18]. Available on DOI: <http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913>. Go to original source...
  12. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017 15(1): 28. [cit. 2017-05-18]. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Danevska L, Spiroski M, Donev D et al. How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals. Pril Makedon Akad Na Nauk Umet Oddelenie Za Med Nauki 2016; 37(2-3): 5-13. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prilozi-2016-0011>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Beall J. Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Inf Dev 2015; 31(5): 473-476. Available on DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915601421>. Go to original source...
  15. Bagues M, Sylos-Labini M, Zinovyeva N. A walk on the wild side: an investigation into the quantity and quality of 'predatory' publications in Italian academia. Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna - Institute of Economics: Pisa: 2017. [cit. 2017-05-23]. (LEM Working Paper Series). Available on WWW: <http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2017-01.pdf>.
  16. Harzing AW, Adler NJ. Disseminating knowledge: from potential to reality - new open-access journals collide with convention. Acad Manag Learn Educ 2016; 15(1): 140-156. Available on DOI: <https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0373>. Go to original source...
  17. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30(12): 1915-1919. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.12.1915>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN et al. Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30(8): 1010-1016. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Ayeni PO, Adetoro N. Growth of predatory open access journals: implication for quality assurance in library and information science research. Libr Hi Tech News 2017; 34(1): 17-22. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2016-0046>. Go to original source...
  20. Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín JM, Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El Prof Inf 2016; 25(5): 730-737. Available on WWW: <https://www.academia.edu/29168581/Presence_of_alleged_predatory_journals_in_bibliographic_databases_Analysis_of_Beall_s_list>. Go to original source...
  21. Macháček V, Srholec M. Predatory journals in Scopus. : IDEA CERGE-EI: Praha 2017. 40 p. [cit. 2017-05-23]. Available on WWW: <http://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdf>.
  22. Crawford W. Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites Insights 2014; 14(4): 1-14. Available on WWW: <https://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf>.
  23. Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature 2015; 526(7575): 613. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/526613f>. Go to original source...
  24. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall's List Better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News 2015; 76(3): 132-135. Go to original source...
  25. Beall J. Don't Use PubMed as a Journal Whitelist. Scholarly Open Access. 2016 [cit. 2017-05-23]. Available on WWW: <http://web.archive.org/web/20170114052258/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/20/dont-use-pubmed-as-a-journal-whitelist/>.
  26. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016; 98(2): 77-79. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. COPE, OASPA, DOAJ et al. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics 2018 [cit. 2018-03-02]. Available on WWW: <https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf>.
  28. Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG et al. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS One 2015; 10(8): e0132557. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Sharman A. Where to publish. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015; 97(5): 329-332. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.0003>. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. OECD. DAC List of ODA Recipients. OECD: Paris 2016 [cit. 2017-06-07]. Available on WWW: <http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm>.
  31. CIEPS. Download ROAD records. ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <https://www.issn.org/services/online-services/road-the-directory-of-open-access-scholarly-resources/>.
  32. DOAJ. Frequently Asked Question: How can I get journal metadata from DOAJ? DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <https://doaj.org/faq>.
  33. OASPA. Members. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. c2017 [cit. 2017-12-13]. Available on WWW: <https://oaspa.org/membership/members/>.
  34. WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. World Association of Medical Editors. 2015 [cit. 2017-12-10]. Available on WWW: <http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice>.
  35. Mehrpour S, Khajavi Y. How to spot fake open access journals. Learn Publ 2014; 27(4): 269-274. Available on DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1087/20140405>. Go to original source...
  36. DOAJ. Information for Publishers. DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. c2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <https://doaj.org/publishers>.
  37. Björk BC, Solomon D. Pricing principles used by scholarly open access publishers. Learn Publ 2012; 25(2): 132-137. Available on DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1087/20120207>. Go to original source...
  38. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 3rd ed. University of Colorado: Denver 2015 [cit. 2018-04-14]. Available on WWW: <https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf>.
  39. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals. WAME. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-10]. Available on WWW: <http://www.wame.org/about/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals>.
  40. Carafoli E. Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei-Sci Fis E Nat 2015; 26(3): 369-382. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-015-0415-4>. Go to original source...
  41. Index Copernicus International. Centrum Badawczo Rozwojowe EN. Index Copernicus. 2017 [cit. 2018-01-23]. Available on WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/168-uncategorised-3/509-centrum-badawczo-rozwojowe-en>.
  42. European Commission. Projects. European Commission: Regional Policy: InfoRegio. 2017 [cit 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects>.
  43. Index Copernicus. ICI Journals Master List. Index Copernicus International. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/parametryzacja-menu-2/journals-master-list-2>.
  44. Clarivate Analytics. Journal Search: Master Journal List. Clarivate Analytics. c2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=master>.
  45. Index Copernicus. Evaluation methodology. Index Copernicus International. 2017 [cit. 2017-06-16]. Available on WWW: <http://www.indexcopernicus.com/index.php/en/parametrisation-1/journals-master-list-2/the-methodology-en>.
  46. Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A et al. Improvement of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: a data analysis. Ital J Libr Inf Sci 2017; 8(1): 1-21. Available on DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12052>.
  47. Appendixes available on WWW: <https://is.muni.cz/repo/1527916/>.




Vnitřní lékařství

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.