Predatory publishing news (comment)

Margaret DeLacy's picture


Today's Scholarly Kitchen blog contains an article by Rick Anderson about an enforcement effort by the Federal Trade Commission against OMICS coupled with a statement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) warning authors who have NIH grants that they are olbiged to publish the resulting research in "credible journals."

Anderson points out, however, that commentators often to fail to note the critical difference between low quality of research and financial fraud. 

"Federal Trade Commission and National Institutes of Health Take Action Against Predatory Publishing Practices," Rick Anderson, Dec 4, 2017

"In an interesting and potentially significant move for the scholarly publishing world, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has granted a preliminary injunction against a major journal publisher and conference organizer in response to a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The injunction was granted on the basis of the Court’s analysis of evidence provided by the FTC and its finding that the FTC’s complaint, if allowed to proceed, “is likely to succeed on the merits” and that the public interest would be served by granting it....

Having “noted an increase in the numbers of papers reported as products of NIH funding which are published in journals or by publishers that do not follow best practices promoted by professional scholarly publishing organizations,” the NIH lays out examples of what it means by failing to “follow best practices.” In the words of the NIH statement, these include:

  • Misleading pricing (e.g., lack of transparency about article processing charges)
  • Failure to disclose information to authors
  • Aggressive tactics to solicit article submissions
  • Inaccurate statements about editorial board membership
  • Misleading or suspicious peer-review processes"