Understanding Predatory Publishing: A Guide for Students and Researchers, Study notes of Communication

Download Understanding Predatory Publishing: A Guide for Students and Researchers and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity! 206 Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask Monica Berger* Introduction: Librarians and Predatory Publishing Librarians have a key role to play in educating users about predatory publishing. Predatory publishing can be described as low quality, amateurish, and often unethical academic publishing that is usually Open Access (OA). Understanding predatory publishing helps authors to make more informed decisions about where to publish. In the process of educating our users, librarians can set the ground for important conversations that encourage critical thinking about the scholarly communications process. Predatory publishing stems from broader prob- lems including overemphasis on publication quantity, an OA models based on traditional, for-profit publishing, and resource disparities in the Global South. When users take fuller responsibility and ownership of scholarly communications, knowledge can be a public good and not a commodity. A more sustainable and just scholarly communications ecosystem can be a reality. As effective advocates for OA, librarians need to be ready to respond to those who conflate OA and preda- tory publishing. It is helpful to contextualize predatory publishing as an aspect of evaluating publishers and the quality of scholarship. This helps promote the idea that due diligence is the responsibility of all scholars, whether as authors, peers, or administrators. Additionally, positioning (deliberate) predatory publishing in the broader arena of unethical and fraudulent scholarly practices helps to decouple predatory publishing from OA and boosts our ability to communicate effectively with non-librarians. Overview Defining predatory publishing is challenging: the word “predatory” may not do justice to a complex subject. It is helpful to re-contextualize predatory publishing as scholarly misconduct as well as understand that it is not new. Before the digital age, predatory publishing took the form of vanity monograph publishing. Other types of sketchy publishing have always existed. How and why did predatory publishing arise and how did a journal- ist stunt shock the scholarly publishing and information community? The results of this stunt, the “Bohannon Sting” resulted in some significant changes. Understanding the detailed characteristics and practices of preda- tory publishing as well as the research on publishers, authors, and editors is critical to moving towards the praxis of educating users. When predatory publishing is situated as just one aspect of evaluating the quality of scholarly publishing, some of the hysteria related to predatory publishing is mitigated, creating possibilities for generating critical thought about scholarly communications. * Monica Berger is Associate Professor, Instruction and Reference Librarian, New York City College of Technology, CUNY, email: mberger@citytech.cuny.edu. Challenge of Defining Predatory Publishing Predatory publishing is an awkward topic. Sometimes called “fake publishing,” it has been described as the “dark side of publishing.”1 “Dark” connotes nefarious as well as that which is inscrutable or obscured. This double meaning is helpful in thinking more deeply about predatory publishing. The term “predatory publishing” was coined in 2010 by librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a now defunct and well-known blacklist of journals and publishers. This term is reductionist. Predation by definition implies inten- tionality and not all predatory journals are deliberately exploitive. Alternative language for predatory publishing suggested includes “dubious,” “low credibility,” and “deceptive,” publishing as well as “scholarly bad faith.”2 The terms “fake journals,” “sham journals,” and “pseudojournals” are also used. No other language describing this phenomenon has taken root: this may be an outcome of Beall’s domination of the discourse. Beall’s list has func- tioned as the only listing of predatory journals. Beall points to predatory publishers’ “deliberate intent to deceive,”3 as does Anderson.4 Unfortunately, the situation is more complex: some publishers identified as predatory may be low quality or amateurish. That said, most predatory publishing exists to make money with little or no consideration of the scholarly record. Preda- tory publishers use spam and they promise rapid peer-reviewed publication in order to attract authors. These authors may be naïve, desperate, or knowingly disingenuous. The peer review process that occurs is superficial or non-existent. Predatory publishers will peer review and accept papers or conference proposals in absurdly short periods of time, sometimes as little as a day or two. Fees for publication are often not transparent. The worst situation is when authors, who recognize too late that a journal is not legitimate, are unable to withdraw their papers. As to predators and victims, the picture is far more complex than meets the eye. Beall stated “unfortunately, there is no objective way to measure or determine whether a publisher is predatory.”5 This ambiguity is helpful for many reasons. It is not fair to pass judgment when someone innocently becomes associated with a predatory journal as an author, editor, or editorial board member. Checking our privilege is important as well: many preda- tory journals are based in the Global South (less developed countries) and it is all too easy to make insensitive generalizations. Lastly, sometimes a journal starts off as insufficiently rigorous and then meaningfully raises its standards: Hindawi Press is a good example.6 Unethical Scholarly Practices and Vanity Publishing Situating (deliberate) predatory publishing as a type of unethical scholarly practice or research misconduct is meaningful. Retraction Watch7 is an excellent resource to keep up with news related to “bad science” and other manifestations of unethical scholarship. Carafoli,8 Berdahl et al.,9 as well as Reid and Cress,10 provide detailed overviews on scholarly and scientific misconduct that include predatory publishing. In mainstream scholarly publishing, bad practices of authors include fabricating and falsifying data, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and gaming author metrics and padding curriculum vitae with excessive self-citation. Gift au- thorship is a nefarious practice where a researcher gives another scholar sham authorship credit. Unethical editor and publisher practices include bogus peer review and coerced citation (excessive citation of journals from an ar- ticle’s publisher) as well as “advocacy” research, (publications with a hidden agenda promoting a business interest). A well-known publisher famously created and then withdrew journals promoting a pharmaceutical company.11 Predatory publishing is often a type of vanity publishing. Vanity academic publishing has a long history chiefly in the form of monograph publishing. Typically, the author pays to publish but there are many mono- graph publishers who instead pass their fees on to libraries by charging exorbitant prices. Librarian Drew Askey was sued unsuccessfully by Mellen Press, a publisher using this model.12 MARCH 22–25, 2017 • BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask 207 ISSN of an established journal. Well-known examples include Wulfenia Journal, Jokull Journal, and Sylwan. Dadkhah has written at length on the topic: for a quick overview, see Bohannon’s short article in Science.38 Hijacked journals may be the worst form of predatory publishing. They are especially de- ceptive and exist purely to defraud scholars, sometimes accepting author fees without publication.39 9. Author-editor nightmares: There are no opportunities for an author to revise. Horrible editing errors are introduced. Sometimes an article will be published without author consent. The editor will refuse to retract an article or to retract an article without payment.40 10. Location information that is contradictory or missing: Bad information about the physical location of publisher can be a telling signal. Many predatory publishers falsely claim a base in the United States or England or a business address that is residential. Use Google Earth to investigate. 11. Standards and identifiers missing, stolen or faked: Check for standard journal identifiers (ISSN) and linking standards (DOIs). ISSNs, however, can be stolen or fabricated. The presence of an ORCID ID (an author identifier) for a journal signals a bogus journal. 12. False and fake bibliometrics: Imaginatively named journal metrics are common as well as false claims of inclusion in legitimate bibliometric services. Fake ‘impact factors’ are supplied by companies that support predatory publishing.41,42 13. False and inappropriate claims of indexing and inclusion in databases: Journals falsely claim inclusion in DOAJ as well as Ulrich’s, Serials Solutions, and Cabell’s. Look for claims of indexing in Sherpa RoMEO or other services that are not indexes as well as bogus indexing services. 14. Amateurish website: Poorly designed, difficult to navigate websites with dead links or many “coming soon” texts can signal a predatory publisher. Excessive and aggressive advertisements are also signs. More recently probable predatory publishers have more sophisticated websites. 15. Nota bene: Many legitimate journals, because they are small and poorly funded, may lack the hall- marks of their shinier, well-supported counterparts. Legitimate journals may lack ISSNs, indexing, impact factor, and other qualities of larger, monied journals. Less than stellar English is also not a meaningful indicator. Characteristics of Predatory Conferences and Monograph Publishers There is relatively little research specifically on predatory conferences. Predatory conferences are as varied as predatory journals. They range from a copycat-named conference to a standalone conference that makes false claims about speakers to the low caliber conference with a lack of cohesion and too many poor speakers. A 2009 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education described low quality conferences located in Las Vegas including one that combined registration fees and journal publishing charges.43 When Science reached out to some attendees of predatory conferences, the sum of responses was not entirely negative.44 A recent article in the New York Times reports on a variety of predatory conferences including one that that is described as “hybrid conference that combines the shady, volume-first internet marketing practices of OMICS with the more quotidian inattention to academic rigor that characterizes much of legitimate academia.” Previous attendees of this annual conference, some of whom were based in the Global South, were satisfied by the conference which provided an opportunity for lower caliber academics to share their work.45 Monographic predatory publishing includes the practice of targeting authors of masters and doctoral theses for potential publication. Theses are published as-is and revenue is generated by library purchases.46 There is relatively little information related to predatory monographic publishing. ACRL 2017 • AT THE HELM: LEADING TRANSFORMATION Monica Berger210 What Does the Research Tell Us? Until fairly recently, most of what has been written on predatory publishing has not be comprehensive. These researchers have published breakthrough research: Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk, based at the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland and Jingfeng Xia (and colleagues) at Indiana University. The Publishers Shen and Björk based their study on all the publishers and journals in Beall’s list (which they acknowledge as problematic). Their research spanned from 2010 to 2014. Of the 11,873 journals found via 996 publishers on Beall’s list, only 67% were actively publishing. They found article publishing grew from 53,000 in 2010 to 420,000 in 2014 in approximately 8,000 journals. In the earlier years of the study, most publishers were large, with over 100 journals. However, after 2012, most publishers were mid-sized and have journal offer- ings of between 10 and 99 titles. Shen and Björk sampled 613 journals for more detailed information about the journals including location. They identified the most active predatory publishers in terms of number of articles per year as based in India (they used Google Earth to sleuth given addresses for validity). In terms of subject matter, after multidisciplinary journals, the most articles were in engineering journals followed by biomedicine.47 Xia, also working with Beall’s list, found that 72% of predatory journals charge fees: money clearly is a mo- tivator for publishers. However, the majority of journals charged low APCs. Surprisingly, “the vast majority of journals have a fee rate under $100, primarily falling in the range of $1–$50.”48 Looking at overall revenue, Xia found a fair amount of variation based on the scale of the journal and publisher.49 Shen and Björk, however, found predatory journals had an average APC of $178.50 These fees are significantly lower than DOAJ journals which average around $1000.51 An earlier study by Solomon and Björk, investigating all types of OA journals, found that for authors from highly developed countries, APCs came from personal funds only 10% of the time while 39% of authors from the Global South paid out-of-pocket.52 The (Global South) Authors Shen and Björk found authors in predatory journals were overwhelmingly from the Global South with the notable exception of South America (South and Latin America have a quality OA publishing infrastructure). Almost 35% were from India, 26% from Asia outside of India, and 16% from Africa. They conclude that most predatory authors are not duped. Pressure to publish in “international journals” drives many of these Global South authors to choose predatory journals. They point to a “global North-South dilemma” where scholarship in the Global South is limited by scholarly publishing standards set in the Global North.53 Different academic cultures in the Global South that value quantity over quality and which are weak in evaluation of scholarship compound this problem. A 2012 study by Truth, which in its title notes publication turn-around speed as key au- thor motivator, characterizes predatory publishing and its authors as a phenomenon of the “largely ex-colonial and subalternized ‘academic periphery’.”54 Cultural Aspects of OA and Academe in the Global South Lunenfield aptly describes the North-South scientific information gap in terms of uploaders (Global North) and downloaders (Global South).55 Concepts of authorship can vary from country to country. For example, in an Islamic country, it is impolite to not give the head of an institution authorship credit even if he had nothing to do with the article. Charlotte Haug of COPE emphasizes how much global values related to sci- ence and scholarship are Western values. However, because English is the lingua-franca of science, non- MARCH 22–25, 2017 • BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask 211 English proficient scholars are more likely to game the publishing system and engage in unethical behaviors including plagiarism.56 Rezeaian in his article about non-English speaking biomedical research notes that in the Global South, publication ethics is not usually taught in universities and that few or no governing bodies are in place. In addition to greater potential for corruption, scholars and scientists in the Global South face myriad infrastructure disadvantages.57 Research on African, Indian, and Chinese Scholars and Predatory Journals In some African countries, quantity is strictly valued and quality is generally disregarded. This value stems in part due to the newness of research at some institutions. The more fundamental issue is a lack of funding and support. Monies go to NGOs for research but not to support publishing. African academics insufficiently take advantage of international funding programs. Academic communities are semi-closed in their interac- tion with public policy-makers and others outside of academe.58–60 In response, great strides towards quality OA have been made by Research4Life, an African organization providing access to scientific information and support for publishing. It has partnered with DOAJ to assure their journals meet high standards.61 The Dakar Declaration and CODESRIA Open Access Conference also support quality OA and stand against predatory publishing.62 India’s rapid expansion without sufficient infrastructure for technology and research outside of its elite insti- tutions has been problematic. Emphasis may be placed on quantity, not quality,63 and there is a lack of knowledge about publication ethics.64,65 Some Indian medical researchers may not comfortable with the criticism of peer review and peer review isn’t part of medical training culture.66 Chinese authorship is growing the most rapidly globally. Unfortunately, China has the most retractions of any country.67 There is a heavy focus on publishing in top journals with high impact factor leaving a few publish- ing venues for the best. Many authors publish in low caliber journals. An estimated $154,000,000 is spent on publishing in “assisted publishing” which includes vanity/predatory journals and other “underground trade.”68 A Science investigation of Chinese scientific publishing found previously published articles for sale via article bro- kers as well as other modes of scholarly cheating.69 Efforts to change the culture include training to help Chinese scholars learn about predatory publishing.70 Authors, Early Career Research points to a scholarly information literacy gap on the part of faculty and other scholarly authors. In particular, early career scholars seem vulnerable to predatory publishing because they are receptive to OA.71 Watkinson and Nicholas’s research views this cohort as less capable of identifying predatory journals and assess- ing journals and less meticulous in their literature reviews.72,73 These academics “lack a publishing culture” and Google Scholar decontextualizes the literature.74 Editors Who are the predatory journal editors who consciously opt into their role? Sometimes authors in predatory journals are invited to become editors of these journals.75 One case study is da Silva and Al-Khatib’s examina- tion of an editor of a specific journal. The authors of the article do not share their correspondence with their subject.76 In nursing, some predatory editors mean well but “fail to do their due diligence” about the journal.77 Plackett tells the story of a well-regarded scholar who agrees to be editor of new journal but then gets pressured to forego peer review.78 ACRL 2017 • AT THE HELM: LEADING TRANSFORMATION Monica Berger212 19. DOAJ, “UPDATE ON REAPPLICATIONS AND NEW APPLICATIONS—News Service,” n.d., https://doajournals.wordpress. com/2016/12/23/update-on-reapplications-and-new-applications/. 20. International Serial Standard Number International Centre, “Guidelines for Requesting an ISSN through the ISSN International Centre Website,” 2014, http://www.issn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ISSNguidelinesENG_03032014.pdf. 21. “DOAJ and the ISSN IC: Memorandum of Understanding | ISSN,” n.d., http://www.issn.org/newsletter_issn/doaj-and-the-issn-ic- memorandum-of-understanding/. 22. Walt Crawford, Gold Open Access Journals 2011–2015, (Cites & Insights Books, 2016), http://waltcrawford.name/goaj1115.pdf 23. DOAJ, “Some Journals Say They Are Indexed in DOAJ but They Are Not—News Service,” n.d., https://doajournals.wordpress. com/2014/08/28/some-journals-say-they-are-in-doaj-when-they-are-not/. 24. Walt Crawford, “Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall,” Cites & Insights 14, no. 4 (2014): Jan. 3, 2015-1-14. 25. Karen Coyle, “Predatory Publishers | Peer to Peer Review,” 2013, http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/opinion/peer-to-peer- review/predatory-publishers-peer-to-peer-review/#_. 26. Jill Emery, “Heard on the Net: It’s a Small World After All: Traveling Beyond the Viewpoint of American Exceptionalism to the Rise of the Author,” no. Journal Article (2013). 27. Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella, “Beyond Beall’s List Better Understanding Predatory Publishers,” College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 3 (2015): 132–35. 28. Phil Jones, “Defending Regional Excellence in Research or Why Beall Is Wrong About SciELO—The Scholarly Kitchen,” n.d., https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/10/defending-regional-excellence-in-research-or-why-beall-is-wrong-about-scielo/. 29. Meredith Schwartz, “Alleged Defamation Worth $1 B,” Library Journal 138, no. 11 (2013): 19. 30. “FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers: Complaint Alleges Company Made False Claims, Failed to Disclose Steep Publishing Fees,” n.d., https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-aca- demic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived. 31. Jeffrey Beall, “The Open-Access Movement Is Not Really about Open Access,” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 11, no. 2 (2013): 589–97. 32. Wayne Bivens-Tatum, “Reactionary Rhetoric against Open Access Publishing,” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 12, no. 2 (2014): 441–446. 33. Jeffrey Beall, “WHAT THE OPEN-ACESS MOVEMENT Doesn’t Want You to Know,” Academe 101, no. 3 (2015): 37. 34. Sneha Kulkarni, “What Causes Peer Review Scams and How Can They Be Prevented?” Learned Publishing, no. Journal Article (2016). 35. Emily Ford, “Keeping Up With… Open Peer Review | Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL),” n.d., http://www.ala. org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/opr. 36. Buckland, “On the Mark,” 3–5. 37. Margot Wehrmeijer, “Exposing the Predators. Methods to Stop Predatory Journals” (Leiden University, 2014). 38. John Bohannon, “How to Hijack a Journal,” Science 350, no. 6263 (2015 2015): 903 905, doi:10.1126/science.350.6263.903. 39. Shawren Singh and Dan Remenyi, “Researchers Beware of Predatory and Counterfeit Journals: Are Academics Gullible?” Elec- tronic Journal of Business Research Methods 14, no. 1 (2016). 40. Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson, “The False Academy: Predatory Publishing in Science and Bioethics,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, no. Journal Article (n.d.): 1–8. 41. Mehrdad Jalalian, “The Story of Fake Impact Factor Companies and How We Detected Them,” Electronic Physician 7, no. 2 (2015): 1069. 42. Aamir Raoof Memon, “ResearchGate Is No Longer Reliable: Leniency towards Ghost Journals May Decrease Its Impact on the Scientific Community,” no. Journal Article (n.d.). 43. Margaret Brooks, “Red-Flag Conferences,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d., accessed March 26, 2009. 44. Jon Cohen, “Meetings That Flatter, but May Not Deliver,” Science 342, no. 6154 (2013): 76–77, doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.76. 45. Kevin Carey, “Fake Academe, Looking Much Like the Real Thing,” New York Times, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/ upshot/fake-academe-looking-much-like-the-real-thing.html. 46. Joseph Stromberg, “LAP Lambert Academic Publishing: My Trip to a Print Content Farm.,” n.d., http://www.slate.com/articles/ technology/future_tense/2014/03/lap_lambert_academic_publishing_my_trip_to_a_print_content_farm.html. 47. Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk, “‘Predatory’ Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteris- tics,” BMC Medicine 13, no. 1 (2015): 230. 48. Jingfeng Xia, “Predatory Journals and Their Article Publishing Charges,” Learned Publishing 28, no. 1 (2015): 69–74. 49. Xia, “Predatory Journals and their Article Publishing Charges,” 73. 50. Shen and Björk, “’Predatory’ Open Access: A Longitudinal Study” 51. Morrison, et al., “Open Access Article Processing Charges” 52. Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon, “How Research Funders Can Finance APCs in Full OA and Hybrid Journals,” Learned Publishing 27, no. 2 (2014): 93–103. 53. Shen and Björk, “’Predatory’ Open Access: A Longitudinal Study” 54. Frank Truth, “Pay Big to Publish Fast: Academic Journal Rackets,” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 10, no. 2 (2012): 54–105. MARCH 22–25, 2017 • BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask 215 55. Peter Lunenfield, The Secret War between Downloading and Uploading. Tales of the Computer as a Culture Machine. (Washington, MIT Press, 2011), quoted in Williams Ezinwa Nwagwu, “Counterpoints about Predatory Open Access and Knowledge Publishing in Africa,” Learned Publishing 28, no. 2 (2015), 120. 56. Stewart Wills and Charlotte Haug, “Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Talking Publication Ethics—The Scholarly Kitchen,” accessed July 16, 2015, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/07/15/scholarly-kitchen-podcast-talking-publication-ethics/. 57. M. Rezaeian, “Disadvantages of Publishing Biomedical Research Articles in English for Non-Native Speakers of English,” Epidemi- ology and Health 37, no. Journal Article (2015): e2015021, doi:10.4178/epih/e2015021. 58. Ayokunle Olumuyiwa Omobowale et al., “Peripheral Scholarship and the Context of Foreign Paid Publishing in Nigeria,” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (2014): 666–84. 59. WE Nwagwu, “Open Access in the Developing Regions: Situating the Altercations About Predatory Publishing/L’accès Libre Dans Les Régions En Voie de Développement: Situation de La Controverse Concernant Les Pratiques D’édition Déloyales,” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 40, no. 1 (2016): 58–80. 60. Henry Trotter and Catherine Kell, Seeking Impact and Visibility: Scholarly Communication in Southern Africa, (African Minds, 2014), 199. 61. “DOAJ TO ASSIST RESEARCH4LIFE WITH ENSURING THE INCLUSION OF QUALITY OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHERS,” n.d., https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/doaj-to-assist-research4life-with-ensuring-the-inclusion-of-quality-open-access- publishers/. 62. Peter O. Nwosu, Williams E. Nwagwu, and Ebrima Sall, “Open Access and the Future of African Knowledge Economy,” CODES- RIA Bulletin, no. Numbers 1 & 2 (2016): 32. 63. Vasantha Raju N., “How Does UGC Identify Predatory Journals?” Current Science (00113891) 104, no. 11 (2013): 1461–62. 64. Rakesh Aggarwal et al., “The Revised Guidelines of the Medical Council of India for Academic Promotions: Need for a Rethink,” Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, no. Journal Article (2016). 65. Dhulika Dhingra and Devendra Mishra, “Publication Misconduct among Medical Professionals in India.,” no. Journal Article (2014). 66. Vinod Ravindran, Durga Prasanna Misra, and Vir Singh Negi, “Letter to the Editor: Predatory Practices and How to Circumvent Them: A Viewpoint from India,” Journal of Korean Medical Science 32, no. 1 (2017): 160–61. 67. B. Ataie-Ashtiani, “Chinese and Iranian Scientific Publications: Fast Growth and Poor Ethics,” Science and Engineering Ethics, no. Journal Article (2016), doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1. 68. GE Gorman, Jennifer Rowley, and Xiang Ren, “The Quandary between Communication and Certification: Individual Academics’ Views on Open Access and Open Scholarship,” Online Information Review 39, no. 5 (2015): 682–97. 69. M. Hvistendahl, “China’s Publication Bazaar,” Science (New York, N.Y.) 342, no. 6162 (2013): 1035–39, doi:10.1126/sci- ence.342.6162.1035. 70. Helen Dobson, “Think. Check. Submit.: The Campaign Helping Researchers Navigate the Scholarly Communication Landscape,” Insights 29, no. 3 (2016). 71. Jingfeng Xia et al., “Who Publishes in ‘Predatory’ Journals?” 72. Anthony Watkinson et al., “Changes in the Digital Scholarly Environment and Issues of Trust: An Exploratory, Qualitative Analy- sis,” Information Processing & Management 52, no. 3 (2016): 446–58. 73. David Nicholas et al., “Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently When Deciding What to Read and Cite and Where to Publish?” International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology 5, no. 2 (2015). 74. David Nicholas et al., “Publish or Perish Thwarts Young Researchers’ Urge to Innovate,” Research Europe, no. Journal Article (2016): 7. 75. Rajeev Raghavan, Neelesh Dahanukar, and Sanjay Molur, “Curbing Academic Predators: JoTT’s Policy Regarding Citation of Pub- lications from Predatory Journals,” Journal of Threatened Taxa 7, no. 10 (2015): 7610. 76. Jaime A Teixeira da Silva and Aceil Al-Khatib, “The Macro and Micro Scale of Open Access Predation,” Publishing Research Quar- terly, no. Journal Article (n.d.): 1–9. 77. Leslie H. Nicoll and Peggy L. Chinn, “Caught in the Trap: The Allure of Deceptive Publishers,” Nurse Author & Editor, no. 4 (2015): 4. 78. Benjamin Plackett, “Predatory Journals Lure in Arab Researchers—Al-Fanar MediaAl-Fanar Media,” n.d., http://www.al-fanarme- dia.org/2015/10/predatory-journals-lure-in-arab-researchers-2/. 79. Margaret Ray, “An Expanded Approach to Evaluating Open Access Journals,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47, no. 4 (2016): 307–27, doi:10.3138/jsp.47.4.307. 80. Mary M. Christopher and Karen M. Young, “Awareness of ‘Predatory’ Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2, no. Journal Article (2015). 81. Krystal E. Noga-Styron, J. Michael Olivero, and Sarah Britto, “Predatory Journals in the Criminal Justices Sciences: Getting Our Cite on the Target,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, no. Journal Article (2016): 1–18. 82. Linlin Zhao, “Riding the Wave of Open Access: Providing Library Research Support for Scholarly Publishing Literacy,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 45, no. 1 (2014): 3–18. 83. Carol Tenopir et al., “Imagining a Gold Open Access Future: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Funding Scenarios among Authors of Aca- demic Scholarship,” College & Research Libraries, no. Journal Article (2016), http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2016/09/27/crl16-964. ACRL 2017 • AT THE HELM: LEADING TRANSFORMATION Monica Berger216 84. Barbara Fister, “Publish Research. Not Too Much. | Library Babel Fish,” Inside Higher Ed, May 18, 2015, https://www.insidehigh- ered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish/publish-research-not-too-much. 85. “Think. Check. Submit,” 1/29/2017, http://thinkchecksubmit.org/. 86. Sarah Beaubien and Max Eckard, “Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators,” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 2, no. 2 (2014): 8. 87. Christian Fuchs and Marisol Sandoval, “The Diamond Model of Open Access Publishing: Why Policy Makers, Scholars, Uni- versities, Libraries, Labour Unions and the Publishing World Need to Take Non-Commercial, Non-Profit Open Access Serious,” TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 11, no. 2 (2013): 428–43. 88. Rebecca Kennison and Lisa Norberg, “A Scalable and Sustainable Approach to Open Access Publishing and Archiving for Humanities and Social Sciences,” New York, NY: KIN Consultants. Retrieved from http://Knconsultants.org/Toward-a-Sustainable- Approach-to-Open-Access-Publishing-and-Archiving, (2014). MARCH 22–25, 2017 • BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask 217