Information Management 2 (IM-2)
Objectives: In January 2017, academic librarian Jeffrey Beall’s controversial and impactful List of “predatory” publishers and standalone journals went suddenly dark. The publishers and journals, however, remain. How many “predatory” journals in the health sciences fields have permeated the full-text databases and online repositories on which researchers and librarians depend?
Methods: In November 2016, the researchers investigated each of the 248 publishers named on Beall’s List for a minimum of 3 consecutive years and found a total of 74 listing titles in the health sciences. Analysis proceeded in 2 phases: (1) Journal selection: Each publisher website was harvested, resulting in a set of 1397 health sciences journals. (2) Article selection: One article from each journal was identified and checked for its presence in 6 digital locations: PubMed; PubMed Central; Google Scholar; Web of Science; Scopus; and the Primo academic library discovery service licensed by the researchers’ home institution. In addition, the researchers examined characteristics of these “predatory” journals: presence in Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory; topic according to NLM classification; indexing and abstracting services (both advertised and actual); and articles with similar or identical content appearing in both “predatory” and non-”predatory” journals.
Keywords: Scholarly communication; open access publishing; health science databases; citation indexes