Raubtier-Journale im HNO-Fachgebiet

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Pseudowissenschaftliche Raubtier-Journale machen seit vielen Jahren unter Missbrauch des „Open Access“-Modells ein kommerziell-lukratives Geschäft mit wissenschaftlichen Manuskripten, indem sie gegen Publikationsgebühren eine schnelle und unkomplizierte Veröffentlichung von wissenschaftlichen Manuskripten offerieren. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob auch das HNO-Fachgebiet von dieser Praxis bereits erreicht ist.

Material und Methoden Ein pseudowissenschaftliches Fake-Manuskript wurde an 20 (Fach-)Journale geschickt, bei denen der Journaltitel auf einen otorhinolaryngologischen Inhalt hinwies. Bei der Hälfte der Journale handelte es sich um traditionelle HNO-Journale, die eine Printausgabe herausbringen und die sich im Wesentlichen aus Abonnements und Anzeigen finanzieren. Bei der anderen Hälfte handelte es sich um Journale, die ausschließlich nach dem „Open Access“-Modell publizieren. Es wurden verschiedene Parameter der Journale und des Begutachtungsprozesses ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse Alle 10 traditionellen HNO-Fachjournale lehnten eine Publikation des Fake-Manuskriptes ab. Unter den Journalen, die ausschließlich nach dem „Open Access“-Modell publizierten, gab es eine Ablehnung des Manuskripts, während 2 Journale eine Revision empfahlen und bei 7 Journalen das Manuskript direkt zur Publikation angenommen wurde.

Schlussfolgerung Raubtier-Verlage und -Journale sind auch im HNO-Fachgebiet aktiv. Gerade bei Journalen, die Artikel ausschließlich „Open Access“ gegen eine Publikations- oder Bearbeitungsgebühr publizieren, sollten wissenschaftliche Autoren vorsichtig sein und die Seriosität der Zeitschrift vorab prüfen.

Abstract

Background Pseudo-scientific predatory journals have been making a commercially lucrative business with scientific manuscripts for many years misusing the “open access” model by offering a fast and uncomplicated publication of scientific manuscripts in return for publication fees. The question arises as to whether the specialty field of otorhinolaryngology has already been infiltrated by this bad practice.

Material and methods A pseudo-scientific fake manuscript was sent to 20 journals in which the journal title indicated an otorhinolaryngological content. Half of the journals were traditional otorhinolaryngology journals, which publish a print edition and which are mainly financed by subscriptions and advertisements. The other half were journals that published exclusively according to the “open access” model. Various parameters of the journals and of the review process were evaluated.

Results All 10 traditional ORL journals refused to publish the fake manuscript. Among the journals that published exclusively according to the “open access” model, there was one rejection of the manuscript, while 2 journals recommended a revision and 7 journals accepted the manuscript directly for publication.

Conclusion Predatory publishers and journals are also active in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Especially at journals that publish articles exclusively “open access” for a publication or processing fee, scientific authors should be careful and check the seriousness of the journal in advance by using recommended hints and tools.

Schlüsselwörter

Wissenschaft - Publikationen - Peer Review - open access - otorhinolaryngology

Keywords

science - publications - peer review - open access - otorhinolaryngology

Publication History

Received: 05 June 2022

Accepted after revision: 23 September 2022

Article published online:
27 November 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Gaught AMH, Cleveland CA, Hill JJ. Publish or perish?: physician research productivity during residency training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. August 2013; 92 (08) 710-714
• 2 Emile SH. Interactive platform for peer review: A proposal to improve the current peer review system. World J Clin Cases. 26. Februar 2021; 9 (06) 1247-1250
• 3 Erdağ TK. Are We as Otorhinolaryngologists Aware of the Danger of Predatory Journals? Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. September 2017; 55 (03) 95-98
• 4 Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H. et al. The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011; 6 (06) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020961. (PMID: 21695139)
• 5 Berger M. Everything you ever wanted to know about predatory publishing but were afraid to ask. ACRL 2017; 206-207
• 6 Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B. et al. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; 32 (09) 1441-1449 DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15039. (PMID: 29729106)
• 7 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 (01) 28 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9. (PMID: 28298236)
• 8 Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B. et al. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research 2018; 7: 1001 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15256.2. (PMID: 30135732)
• 9 Cortegiani A, Sanfilippo F, Tramarin J. et al. Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine. J Crit Care 2019; 50: 247-249
• 10 Rupp M, Anastasopoulou L, Wintermeyer E. et al. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (03) 509-517 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1. (PMID: 30288548)
• 11 Kokol P, Završnik J, Žlahtič B. et al. Bibliometric characteristics of predatory journals in pediatrics. Pediatr Res 2018; 83 (06) 1093-1094 DOI: 10.1038/pr.2018.54. (PMID: 29846367)
• 12 Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L. et al. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience 2017; 353: 166-173 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.014. (PMID: 28433651)
• 13 Shen C, Björk BC. „Predatory“ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13: 230 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2. (PMID: 26423063)
• 14 Laccourreye O, Maisonneuve H. Predatory journals in otorhinolaryngology. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2020; 137 (04) 249-250 DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2020.03.001. (PMID: 32173277)
• 15 Cobey K. Illegitimate journals scam even senior scientists. Nature 2017; 549: 7 DOI: 10.1038/549007a. (PMID: 28880308)
• 16 Kearney MH. Predatory publishing: what authors need to know. Res Nurs Health 2015; 38 (01) 1-3 DOI: 10.1002/nur.21640. (PMID: 25545343)
• 17 Website: SCIgen – An Automatic CS Paper Generator. https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
• 18 Bohannon J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?. Science 2013; 342: 60-65 DOI: 10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60. (PMID: 24092725)
• 19 Boghossian P, Lindsay J. The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies. Website. https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/
• 20 Mudry A, Ruben RJ. The fox and the crow: predatory open access journals in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161: 193-194 DOI: 10.1177/0194599819838756. (PMID: 31132942)
• 21 Byard RW. The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. Dezember 2016; 12 (04) 391-393
• 22 Website. https://the.greedy.moneymonarchy.international/kapitel/k2-gehirnwaesche/fakescience/so-einfach-wurden-wir-wissenschaftler/
• 23 Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Herman E et al. Publish or perish thwarts young researchers’ urge to innovate. Res Eur J Artic. 2016;(07).
• 24 Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG. et al. Who Publishes in “Predatory” Journals?. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015; 66 (07) 1406-1417
• 25 Memon AR. Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?. Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24 (05) 1617-1639 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6. (PMID: 28815439)
• 26 Website: Cabell’s International – About blacklist. https://www2.cabells.com/about-blacklist
• 27 Website: How to spot predatory publishers. Publons. https://publons.com/blog/bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost/
• 28 Website: List of Predatory Journals | Stop Predatory Journals. https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/
• 29 Website: thinkchecksubmit. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/
• 30 Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ 2015; 350: 210 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h210. (PMID: 25596387)
• 31 Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochem Medica. 15. Juni 2017; 27 (02) 273-278
• 32 Somoza M, Rodríguez-Gairín JM, Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. Prof Inf 2016; 25 (05) 730-737
• 33 Dobusch L, Heimstädt M. Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review. In: Management Learning 2019; 607-619
• 34 Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochem Medica. 15. Juni 2017; 27 (02) 285-291 DOI: 10.15171/ijoem.2017.1048. (PMID: 28432373)
• 35 Chandra R, Fisher EW, Jones TM. et al. Open access: Is there a predator at the door? The Laryngoscope. Juni 2018; 128 (06) 1255-1256
• 36 Mudry A. Polluting and harassing „otorhinolaryngological“ emails: Has the time arrived to talk openly about it? Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2022; 139 (05) 285-287 DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2022.03.004. (PMID: 35581119)
• 37 Camacho M, Reckley LK. Predatory journals: Enough is enough. The Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (07) 1510 DOI: 10.1002/lary.27178. (PMID: 29658136)