Academic Librarians and Their Role in Disseminating Accurate Knowledge and Information about the Gray Zone in Predatory Publishing

References

• Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 208–219. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4
   Google Scholar
• AlRyalat, S. A., Farah, R. I., Shehadeh, B., Abukeshek, A., Aldabbas, L., Al-Fawair, A., & Ababneh, O. (2019). Biomedical researchers and students knowledge about predatory journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(5), 102056. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atiso, K., Kammer, J., & Bossaller, J. (2019). Predatory publishing and the Ghana experience: A call to action for information professionals. IFLA Journal, 45(4), 277–288. doi:10.1177/0340035219868816
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. (2010a). Predatory” open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. (2010b). Update: Predatory open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 12(1), 50–50. doi:10.5260/chara.12.1.50
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326. doi:10.1038/534326a
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, M. (2017). Everything you ever wanted to know about predatory publishing but were afraid to ask. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), ACRL 2017. At the Helm: Leading Transformation, March 22-25, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland. Conference Proceedings (pp. 206–217). Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, a Division of the American Library Association.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. doi:10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
   Google Scholar
• Boté-Vericad, J.-J. (2020). Fake news and information professionals’ codes of ethics. Telos Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, 22(3), 567–578. doi:10.36390/telos223.07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramstedt, K. A. (2020). Unmasking the hunter: An exploration of predatory publishing. Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, 2(1), 1–10. doi:10.35122/001c.13267
   Google Scholar
• Brantley, S., Bruns, T. A., & Duffin, K. I. (2017). Librarians in transition: Scholarly communication support as a developing core competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(3), 137–150. doi:10.1080/1941126X.2017.1340718
   Google Scholar
• Buitrago Ciro, J., & Bowker, L. (2020). Investigating academic library responses to predatory publishing in the United States, Canada, and Spanish-speaking Latin America. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(4), 625–652. doi:10.1108/AJIM-03-2020-0089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buitrago Ciro, J., & Bowker, L. (2021). Does a predator need prey? Examining the evolving terminology of predatory publishing. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 43(3), 195–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaghan, C. W., & Nicholson, D. R. (2020). Predatory publishing and predatory journals: A critical review and proposed research agenda for higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(10), 1433–1449. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2019.1695762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesson, P., & Kuang, J. (2008). The interaction between predation and competition. Nature, 456(7219), 235–238. doi:10.1038/nature07248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobey, K. (2017). Illegitimate journals scam even senior scientists. Nature, 549(7670), 7. doi:10.1038/549007a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research, 7, 1001. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• COPE. (2018). Predatory publishing. Discussion document. doi:10.24318/cope.2019.3.6
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, W. (2016). ‘Trust me’: The other problem with 87% of Beall’s lists. http://walt.lishost.org/2016/01/trust-me-the-other-problem-with-87-of-bealls-lists/
   Google Scholar
• Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology , 12(3), 353–362. doi:10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakić, N., Trtovac, A., & Andonovski, J. (2020). Changing the role of the librarian – from a cataloguer to an educator. Infotheca, 20(1–2), 27–46. doi:10.18485/infotheca.2020.20.1_2.2
   Google Scholar
• Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M., & Reimchen, T. E. (2015). HUMAN IMPACTS. The unique ecology of human predators. Science (New York, N.Y.), 349(6250), 858–860. doi:10.1126/science.aac4249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Paor, S., & Heravi, B. (2020). Information literacy and fake news: How the field of librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102218. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deville, J., Sondervan, J., Stone, G., & Wennström, S. (2019). Rebels with a cause? Supporting library and academic-led open access publishing. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1–28. doi:10.18352/lq.10277
   Google Scholar
• Dony, C., Raskinet, M., Renaville, F., Simon, S., & Thirion, P. (2020). How reliable and useful is Cabell's Blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly, 30(1), 1–38. doi:10.18352/lq.10339
   Google Scholar
• Elmore, S. A., & Weston, E. H. (2020). Predatory journals: What they are and how to avoid them. Toxicologic Pathology, 48(4), 607–610. doi:10.1177/0192623320920209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsayed, D. E. M. (2020). Fraud and misconduct in publishing medical research. Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences, 15(2), 131–141. doi:10.18502/sjms.v15i2.6693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. doi:10.1002/leap.1135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evangelista, I. V., Santos, J. C. G., Guimarães, J. A. C., & Fernández-Molina, J. C. (2020). O acesso à informação como supravalor ético em organização do conhecimento: Diálogos entre a literatura científica e as fontes normativas na perspectiva brasileira. Revista Ibero-Americana de Ciência da Informação, 13(2), 503–521. in Portuguese with English abstract). doi:10.26512/rici.v13.n2.2020.24955
   Google Scholar
• Eve, M. P., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 755–770.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, L. E., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 279–284. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frandsen, T. F. (2019a). How can a questionable journal be identified? Frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 221–226. doi:10.1002/leap.1230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frandsen, T. F. (2019b). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 57–62. doi:10.1002/leap.1214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froelich, T. J. (2017). A not-so-brief account of current information ethics: The ethics of ignorance, missing information, misinformation, disinformation and other forms of deception or incompetence. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentaci?, 39, 14. doi:10.1344/BiD2017.39.8
   Google Scholar
• Froelich, T. J. (2019). The role of pseudo-cognitive authorities and self-deception in the dissemination of fake news. Open Information Science, 3(1), 115–136. doi:10.1515/opis-2019-0009
   Google Scholar
• Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howie, J., & Kara, H. (2020). Research support in New Zealand university libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship , 1–30. doi:10.1080/13614533.2019.1700535
   Google Scholar
• Jan, R., & Kul, S. (2021). The baffling disappearance of Beall’s blog (www.scholarlyoa.com): Reasons revealed. Library Philosophy and Practice, 5582, 12.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, D. N. (2014). Predatory personalities as behavioral mimics and parasites: Mimicry-deception theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 9(4), 445–451. doi:10.1177/1745691614535936
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kimotho, S. G. (2019). The storm around Beall’s list: A review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers. African Research Review, 13(2), 1–12. doi:10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1
   Google Scholar
• Koerber, A., Starkey, J. C., Ardon-Dryer, K., Cummins, R. G., Eko, L., & Kee, K. F. (2020). A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(6), 102236. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubek, M. (2020). Library services. In Concepts and methods for a librarian of the Web. Studies in Big Data (Vol. 62, pp. pp. 7–14). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23136-1_2
   Google Scholar
• Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. doi:10.1002/leap.1150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard, M., Stapleton, S., Collins, P., Selfe, T. K., & Cataldo, T. (2021). Ten simple rules for avoiding predatory publishing scams. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(9), e1009377. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez, E., & Gaspard, C. S. (2020). Predatory publishing and the academic librarian: Developing tools to make decisions. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 39(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/02763869.2020.1693205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manley, S. (2019). Predatory journals on trial: Allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(3), 183–200. doi:10.3138/jsp.50.3.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, D., & Bell, K. (2021). National propensities? Scientometrics, (in press). doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04014-w (corrigendum: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04070-2. )
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2021). Problematizing “predatory publishing”: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104. doi:10.1002/leap.1325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, J. A. (2019). Predatory publishing and the response from the scholarly community. Serials Review, 45(1–2), 73–78. doi:10.1080/00987913.2019.1624910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazarovets, S., Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Nazarovets, M. (2019). Challenge of Ukrainian academic librarians in the battle against "predatory" journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(1), 9–14. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., … Świgoń, M. (2021). Early career researchers and predatory publishing: The views and behaviours of the millennials. Foresight and STI Governance, 15(1), 56–65. doi:10.17323/2500-2597.2021.1.56.65
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojala, M., Reynolds, R., & Johnson, K. G. (2020). Predatory journal challenges and responses. The Serials Librarian, 78(1–4), 98–103. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894
   Google Scholar
• Oliphant, T. (2019). The self and others: Revisiting information needs and libraries as public, social institutions in a post-truth world. Open Information Science, 3(1), 261–273. doi:10.1515/opis-2019-0018
   Google Scholar
• Olivarez, J. D., Bales, S., Sare, L., & vanDuinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: Applying Beall's criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 52–67. doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pecorari, D. (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(3), 343–361. doi:10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyne, D. (2017). The rewards of predatory publishing at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 48(3), 137–160. doi:10.3138/jsp.48.3.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rascão, J. P. (2020). Freedom of expression, privacy, and ethical and social responsibility in democracy in the digital age. International Journal of Business Strategy and Automation, 1(3), 1–23. doi:10.4018/IJBSA.2020070101
   Google Scholar
• Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., & Richtig, E. (2018). Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32(9), 1441–1449. doi:10.1111/jdv.15039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera, H., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Retractions, fake peer reviews, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(24), e165. doi:10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sewell, C., & Kingsley, D. (2017). Developing the 21st century academic librarian: The Research Support Ambassador Programme. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(2–3), 148–158. doi:10.1080/13614533.2017.1323766
   Google Scholar
• Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., … Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrum of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1386–1401. doi:10.1002/asi.24339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio, 10, e00411–19. doi:10.1128/mBio.00411-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swauger, S. (2017). Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing. College & Research Libraries News, 78(11), 603–606. doi:10.5860/crln.78.11.603
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Predatory publishing: A quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(1), 21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” lists must not be used: They are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate. Bibliothecae.it, 6(1), 425–436. doi:10.6092/issn.2283-9364/7044
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing lists. AME Medical Journal, 2, 97–97. doi:10.21037/amj.2017.06.14
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2018). The illicit and illegitimate continued use of Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access black lists. Journal of Radical Librarianship, 4, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020a). The ethical and academic implications of the Jeffrey Beall (www.scholarlyoa.com) blog shutdown. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3465–3467. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9905-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020b). Is there a clear division between predatory and low-quality journals and publishers? Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 50(4), 458–459. doi:10.4997/JRCPE.2020.427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020c). Cabell’s International publishing blacklist: An interview with Kathleen Berryman. Journal of Radical Librarianship, 6, 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021a). How to shape academic freedom in the digital age? Are the retractions of opinionated papers a prelude to “cancel culture” in academia? Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 100035. doi:10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100035
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021b). Assessing the ethics of stings, including from the prism of guidelines by ethics-promoting organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE). Publishing Research Quarterly, 37(1), 90–98. doi:10.1007/s12109-021-09784-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021c). Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Medical Journal Armed Forces India. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021d). Challenges that early career researchers face in academic research and publishing: Pre- and post-COVID-19 perspectives. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 9(1), 77–106. doi:10.31273/eirj.v9i1.882
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME, 4(1), 84–88. doi:10.17646/KOME.2016.16
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Kimotho, S. G. (2021). Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 102418. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 781–792. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2020). Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(1), 102070. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2021a). Do legitimate publishers profit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 8(3), 55–68. doi:10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2021b). Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Learned Publishing. doi:10.1002/leap.1409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Al-Khatib, A., & Tsigaris, P. (2020). Spam emails in academia: Issues and costs. Scientometrics, 122(2), 1171–1181. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03315-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019). Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(6), 102071. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dunleavy, D. J., Moradzadeh, M., & Eykens, J. (2021). A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of journals and publishers. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8589–8616. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Moradzadeh, M., Adjei, K. O. K., Owusu-Ansah, C. M., Balehegn, M., Faúndez, E. I., … Al-Khatib, A. (2022). An integrated paradigm shift to deal with “predatory” publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(1), 102481. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Sorooshian, S., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Cost-benefit assessment of congresses, meetings or symposia, and selection criteria to determine if they are predatory. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, 14(4), 259–265.
   Google Scholar
• Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Christian, L., Jones, M., McCabe, M., Smith, M., & Fish, A. (2017). Imagining a gold open access future: Attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College and Research Libraries, 78(6), 824–843. doi:10.5860/crl.78.6.824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Think. Check. Submit. (2021). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Tsigaris, P., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Why blacklists are not reliable: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 102266. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turrentine, M. (2017). It's all how you "spin" it: Interpretive bias in research findings in the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 129(2), 239–242. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001818
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager, E. (2017). Why we should worry less about predatory publishers and more about the quality of research and training at our academic institutions. Journal of Epidemiology, 27(3), 87–88. doi:10.1016/j.je.2017.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417. doi:10.1002/asi.23265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada, Y., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022). A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity (in press) doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3
   Google Scholar
• Yeoh, M. P., Cazan, A.-M., Zaib, S., Muss, W., & Jacic, L. (2017). Ethical and predatory publishing: Experiences and perceptions of researchers. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences (Law), 10(59), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Zakout, Y. M. (2020). Predatory publishers/journals in medical sciences: How to avoid, stop, and what to do after being scammed by them? Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer, 51(3), 782–787. doi:10.1007/s12029-020-00418-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar