Awareness of "predatory" open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops

Mary M Christopher, Karen M. Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number22
JournalFrontiers in Veterinary Science
Volume2
Issue numberAUG
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 13 2015

Fingerprint

Education
Veterinary Schools
Publications
mentoring
Directories
Mentors
Manuscripts
Bites and Stings
Surveys and Questionnaires
Medical Schools
students
researchers
Research Personnel
Students
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Education
  • Journal selection
  • Mentoring
  • Open access
  • Publishing
  • Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

@article{698f992fa11c46ed93709a397b9d9281,
title = "Awareness of {"}predatory{"} open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops",
abstract = "Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of {"}predatory{"} online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined {"}predatory journal.{"} A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1{\%}) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3{\%}) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7{\%}) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50{\%} (56/112) indicated that they {"}didn't know{"} how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0{\%}) indicated awareness of the term {"}predatory journal{"}; 34 (23.9{\%}) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9{\%}) were aware of the Science {"}sting{"} article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8{\%}) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5{\%}) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.",
keywords = "Education, Journal selection, Mentoring, Open access, Publishing, Survey",
author = "Christopher, {Mary M} and Young, {Karen M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "13",
doi = "10.3389/fvets.2015.00022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
journal = "Frontiers in Veterinary Science",
issn = "2297-1769",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S. A.",
number = "AUG",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Awareness of "predatory" open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops

AU - Christopher, Mary M

AU - Young, Karen M.

PY - 2015/8/13

Y1 - 2015/8/13

N2 - Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

AB - Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

KW - Education

KW - Journal selection

KW - Mentoring

KW - Open access

KW - Publishing

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992679646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992679646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fvets.2015.00022

DO - 10.3389/fvets.2015.00022

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84992679646

VL - 2

JO - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

JF - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

SN - 2297-1769

IS - AUG

M1 - 22

ER -