Nature Publishing Group and Frontiers form alliance to further open science: Accusations of Spamming, Allegations of Poor Review Process, and Unprofessional Invitations

I recently read a string of emails from displeased authors and editors who have been tormented by emails and invitations from Frontier, owned by the Nature Publishing Group.

Frontiers publishes 38 Open Access journals and claims to have a vision to build the ultimate Open Science platform. Their goal is to empower the researcher and create the opportunities necessary to generate and share knowledge.

So far so good! But that kind of knowledge might as well come at the cost of quality publications. One of the people who received solicitation emails from Frontiers expressed his concern for the standard of their peer-review process:

“I find the Frontiers process inacceptable. What kind of quality science do you expect when you give instructions such as “The submitted article type requires only a short review, which means that it is not obligatory to invite reviewers. It is sufficient that you read this manuscript and perform a light review on it yourself. If you have any comments to the authors, please post those directly in the review forum. Otherwise you may take an acceptance decision on this manuscript directly.”

(http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/05/i-get-complaints-about-frontiers/#more-2557)

The publisher is also criticized for sending multiple invitations to researchers asking for either contributions or their editorial/reviewing services. Recipients have also dropped hints of predatory publishing:

“I have been asked to be a “review editor” for Frontiers in Interdisciplinary Physics, and open access journal which I see charges a high fee to publish papers.  It is part of the “Frontiers” group that is evidently associated with Nature.

It looks like they have “chief specialty editor”, and “associate editor,” and “review editors,” the latter being essentially glorified reviewers.  My guess is that the other two editors are going to be paid, so it looks a bit like a pyramid scheme, a lá Amway.  The review editors are supposed to help improve the papers, so it seems to be a fee-for-publishing (with help) kind of deal.  (I actually know the chief specialty and associate editor for this journal.)”

(http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/05/i-get-complaints-about-frontiers/#more-2557)

There is a growing concern that publishers, especially those with years of experience in the publishing industry should raise the bar of publications and refrain from shoddy work. 

TOP SCIENTIFIC DECEPTION SCANDALS OF 2012

It is very unfortunate that more than accidental errors and sloppy blunders, retracted articles and papers are mainly withdrawn from publication as a result of scientific breach intentionally published fake data or any other serious error.  In reality, more than 65% of the 2000 or so papers studied were withdrawn because of poor ethical verdict. Through statistical analysis, it has brought to light that high impact journals have been jeopardized through the escalating rate of withdrawals over the last decade.

Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggested, “Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct.”

Some of the most dazzling examples of scientific deception which happened in 2012 are discussed below.

One of the scandals was related to Eric Smart who was a biomedical researcher at the University of Kentucky. He was being charged for fabricating and falsifying 45 figures over a period of ten years. He was famous and well-regarded for his contributions in the field of molecular mechanisms, cardiovascular disease and diabetes; even though he used data from knock out mouse models which never existed.

Another case was related to Yoshitaka Fuji, a Japanese anesthesiologist, who started his career in falsification at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University , followed by the University of Tsukuba and finally at the Toha University , where he was dismissed. After detailed investigation, it came into knowledge that he was actually dumped for reporting fake patients in his clinical studies which he never visited.

Some researchers were being caught by Retraction Watch for writing shimmering expert reviews for their own papers. When they were asked by the journal editors to recommend names of experts in their respective field who did not contribute in their research, they provided fake names and e-mails which came back to their own inboxes.

The conclusions drawn from around 34,000 criminal drug cases left a question mark earlier this year, when forensic chemist Annie Dookhan was discovered to have falsified records on samples she was assigned to process. In spite of falsifying signatures and did not conduct tests, she recorded them as complete. On account of her actions, a number of defendants may have been mistakenly imprisoned while the correctly accused were free to go.

CRITICISM AND CONTROVERSIES FACED BY HINDAWI:

Hindawi Publishing Corporation was founded in 1997. They were the first subscription publishers who converted their complete range of journals into open access. To date, they have more than 400 open access journals to their credit.

With such a rapid growth and speedy progress, and inclusion of new journals, they have been criticized as a predatory publisher. A number of different controversies are linked with their name, spamming being one of them.

Complaints have been launched against Hindawi that their method of operation is based on spamming researchers with multiple email invitations, either requesting them to join editorial boards or contribute papers.

Per Ola Kristensson- a Computer scientist in 2010 complained about Hindawi in his blog ‘The Strategy’:

“Seems to be to mine reputable conference and journal papers for email addresses and then use them for targeted spam.”

He also added,” Another open access publisher that likes to send spam is Hindawi. However, news to me was that Hindawi now spams on behalf of EURASIP, an organization I thought was reputable (until now).”

On the basis of these consequences and as a preventive measure, Hindawi decided to join a number of additional open access publishers in order to organize The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) which adheres to a professional code of conduct.

The exclusion of one of their journals, “The Scientific World Journal (TSWJ) from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and excessive citations in two of their articles published in the journal “Cell Transplantation” was evidently frustrating and embarrassing for Hindawi. Both journals were peer-reviewed under the supervision of the previous management of the journal.

In a nutshell, Hindawi`s reputation seems to be provisionally grinded on account of the collateral damage occurring from a few well intentioned endeavors to name and disgrace those companies that could be considered as predatory.

Predatory Publishing and the Promise of Open Access Success

Most publishers of medical, technical and science literature offer Open Access and Gold Open Access publication options. The idea is to provide free access to scientific information and research to all, where the author pays for the research to be published rather than the consumer paying for using it. This way, we have a system where the consumer (often medical students, doctors and researchers from the third world) benefit from the free dissemination of valuable scientific knowledge.

However, there are certain factions in the industry that misuse the Open Access model for their own gains. We have been hearing these two words “Predatory Publishers” quite a lot these days. In fact, there is a long list of publishers and journals that have been branded as predatory, sometimes incorrectly.

Actually the problem is neither with the model itself nor with a number of these publishers which have been wrongly accused of abusing the model. Open Access options are available by all major STM publishers, for example Elsevier which publishes 1600 Open Access titles. The problem lies with the authorities which have not been able to organize the standards and guidelines which can oust the fake or exploitative publishers from the business while preserving the integrity of the publishing industry.

The problem here is deeper than meets the eye. First of all, the publisher who is abusing the Open Access model is detrimental to the author community as well as the readers and student body. Research suffers and so does its consumers. When an author undergoes a bad publishing experience where she has been taken advantage of, we can expect that she won’t be using the Open Access option any time soon. Which means she will turn back to the traditional subscription based printing for publishing her research. A clear loss for the reader who will find he is now charged, often unfairly and excessively, for the same research. This is clear from the fact that libraries have come to unite against and even boycott in some instances the traditional publishers who are known to exploit them through unfair pricing, shoddy bundling offers and low-quality research such as sponsored journals. The libraries and their patrons are not happy at all with the situation, as is evident from the case of the University of California when at one time it was obliged to pay $8 million a year for accessing Elsevier journals.

The other side of the problem is the labeling of a number of legitimate Open Access journals as predatory by certain splinter groups. Richard Poynder gives a detailed analysis of predatory publishing questions in his blog Open and Shut? , which will shed light on the various points-of-view involved in the controversies. The publishers which have been accused as predatory by Dr Beall’s have actually been in the publishing business for decades. One case is that of Bentham Science Publishers, who have been blacklisted in a Crap Paper controversy, which suggests that the publishers are fake and predatory in nature for a paper they never even published. Bentham is known to process and publish 20,000 research articles a year, and is rather a medium sized publishing company in STM publications.

These days, it is difficult to go by a day without hearing someone’s name in a conflict. The age of the internet has lead to controversies being the oxygen of our lungs. One day you see a company’s name in the “don’ts” list, and the other day it is named as the “best-thing-that-has-happened-to-you”.

While going through a thread of blogs and publishing industry news, I came across a blog by one of the most discussed names of the past years (in reference to controversy), Phil Davis, who declared in his personal blog that neither the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) nor Beall’s list is your go-to list for the names of ‘tainted Open Access journals’. His statement relies on the Sting Operation done by John Bohannan. He assessed many of the OA journals, which were ready to accept his fake article. Based on Bohannon’s work, Davis has clarified that the long list of publishers in the DOAJ and Beall are not based on any scientific or rational evidence and proof. Critics like Beall should be careful in tagging quality publishers as ‘predatory’. No doubt, there are many fake contacts and websites who rip off authors but one should make sure whether they are authentic or not, before naming the valued OA journals as ‘predatory’.

The Perils of Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing

The term Plagiarism represents the employment of someone else’s work, thoughts or ideas as your own or in your work without the consent of the original author. Many governments have declared it as a serious breach of moral code. Authors therefore have to be very careful while writing, because in scientific research and publishing, thoughts and ideas can correlate and correspond. The writer has to make sure that his audience knows that which ideas/phrases belong to others and which are his own original creation.

“Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.” (New Oxford American Dictionary)

There are two kinds of plagiarism in scientific writing, copy of data and copy of texts. In first kind of plagiarism , a researches acquires the data (i.e. charts, figures, diagrams, tables etc) and uses them in his/her own work (with a little modification), while the other one refers to the situation when an author borrows the exact words of another, and does not quote, cite or refer him at all.

According to IEEE, “plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences”

It is quite evident that the competitiveness now-a-days is the most important reason of plagiarism. The peer-reviewing procedure is the most effective technique against plagiarism. A number of STM publishers are known to follow professional guidelines for anti-plagiarism practices and strict peer-reviewing, like Elsevier, Springer, Taylor Francis, Bentham Science Publishers, Wiley etc. Plagiarism is an issue which needs to be addressed by all publishers and other concerned parties in order to protect intellectual property rights.

Questioning Dr. Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers: Myths and Truths

Predatory Open Access Publishers are those which unethically exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing for their own benefit. Usually these publishers spam professional e-mail lists, broadly soliciting article submissions with an obvious intention of gaining additional income. These publishers normally follow fake or non-accurate peer-reviewing procedures.

Beall`s List is a regularly updated report by Jeffrey Beall that includes 225 publishers that he labels are predatory. This list has received much attention from the press as well as researchers and librarians around the world.

However, there are always two sides to a coin, and Dr. Beall’s list of predatory publishers is not entirely irrefutable. Many publishers, especially those who think they have been unjustly alleged as predatory are clearly not pleased¹. Even many representing bodies of publishers have criticized him for jumping to conclusions without adequate investigation. For instance, Beall has not actually worked with many of the publishers he has branded as predatory, and only an analysis of their websites does not entitle him to pass such a judgment against them. Moreover, Dr. Beall has also declared certain newly founded but otherwise genuine journals as predatory², which further raises doubts on his list of predatory open access publishers.

There are certain important issues affecting the publishing industry. The emergence of Open Access Journal Publishers Association (OAJPA), which is believed to be based in India, has again been condemned by Jeffery Beall. We can see a trend here that mostly publishers that are small, new to the industry or based in the third world are targeted and labeled as predatory. On the contrary, many traditional, giant publishers from the developed world are known for charging excessively for their open access journals. They typically have a portfolio of thousands of open access journals, a huge number by any standards. Still, these publishers are seldom labeled exploitative and they never appear in the lists of predatory publishing.

The responsibility of regulating the industry standards for adequate checks and balance lies with the authorities as well as the various players in the industry: the researchers, academic institutions, research institutions, libraries and the publishers themselves. A central body for regulations and control is the need of the day, as expressed by Richard Poynder in his blog: Open and Shut?

“The nub of the matter is that the author-pays OA publishing model has encouraged unscrupulous publishers to enter the scholarly publishing market. Yet no one has come up with an adequate way of delineating the good from the bad. We have Beall’s unsatisfactory binary approach — where OA publishers are essentially assumed to be ok, or predatory — and we have the inherent assumption behind OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) that probity is coterminous with membership of its exclusive club.”

ELSEVIER PUBLISHERS’ Mathematics Journals and Bundling:

The Dutch Publisher Elsevier is famous worldwide for their remarkable publications within the field of Discrete Mathematics, Advances in Mathematics, Mathematics Journals, Journal of Algebra, Journal of Geometry and a lot more. For a long time, they have been bitterly criticized for some of their business practices.

One of the major reasons for criticism and controversy is the higher prices they charge for some of their mathematics journals. Elsevier follows a practice identified as bundling in which rather than giving the libraries the options of journals of their own choice for subscription, they proffer a fixed bundle of journal subscriptions which is often of no value to the libraries and subscribers. They do not have a second alternative for making their selection, either they have to select from that group or nothing at all.

In cases where the libraries find it essential to subscribe to certain Elsevier journals, they have been forced to subscribe them at very high subscription rates. If libraries attempt to discuss better deals, Elsevier is known to cut off the access to their entire journal series.

Bentham Science publisher controversy