Um ano de e-mails não solicitados: o modus operandi de revistas e editoras predatórias

Autores

  • Fernanda Santos de Oliveira Sousa
  • Paulo Nadanovsky
  • Izabel Monteiro Dhyppolito
  • Ana Paula Pires dos Santos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22456/2177-0018.114115

Palavras-chave:

Pesquisa biomédica, Educação médica, Publicação de acesso aberto, Acesso à informação, Políticas editoriais, Correio eletrônico

Resumo

Objetivo: Quantificar, caracterizar e analisar e-mails de revistas predatórias (RP) recebidos por uma pesquisadora da área de odontologia. Materiais e métodos: E-mails recebidos em 2019 e suspeitos de serem potencialmente predatórios foram pré-selecionados. O checklist do Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) para identificar RP biomédicas suspeitas foi aplicado, incluindo os seguintes critérios: taxa/preço de publicação (TP), fator de impacto falso, a revista estar listada no Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) e no Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Também foram extraídas informações sobre a falta de um fator de impacto no Journal Citations Reports , endereço de contato de e-mail não afiliado à revista, linguajar lisonjeiro, citação pessoal e/ou de um artigo, link de cancelamento de inscrição do tipo unsubscribe , estar listado no catálogo atual da National Library of Medicine (NLM) e estar indexado no Medline. Resultados: Um total de 2.812 e-mails suspeitos não solicitados foram recebidos e 1.837 requisitaram algum tipo de manuscrito; entre eles, 1.751 preencheram algum critério do OHRI. Menos da metade (780/1.837, 42%) referiu-se a alguma área da odontologia. A TP mediana foi de US$ 399. Um falso fator de impacto foi mencionado em 11% (201/1.837) dos e-mails e 27% (504/1.837) correspondiam a periódicos atualmente listados no catálogo da NLM. Os periódicos listados no DOAJ e COPE enviaram 89 e-mails. Conclusão: A campanha editorial das RP, sob a forma de e-mails, foi intensa e recorrente. Os pesquisadores devem estar bem informados sobre o modus operandi das RP para proteger sua própria reputação como autores, assim como a reputação da ciência.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Liesegang TJ. The continued movement for open access to peer-reviewed literature. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(3):423-32.

Khan F, Moher D. Predatory Journals: do not enter. UOJMePub. 2017:1-5.

Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013(495):433-5.

Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576(7786):210-2.

Forero DA, Oermann MH, Manca A, Deriu F, Mendieta-Zerón H, Dadkhah M, et al. Negative effects of "predatory" journals on global health research. Ann Glob Health. 2018;84(4):584-9.

Brainard J. Articles in 'predatory' journals receive few or no citations. Science. 2020;367(6474):129.

Björk B-C, Kanto-Karvonen S, Harviainen JT. How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited. Publications. 2020;8(17).

Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ. 2018;190(35):E1042-E5.

Manca A, Cugusi L, Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Moher D, Deriu F. Predatory journals enter biomedical databases through public funding. BMJ. 2020;371:m4265.

Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit…. BMC Med. 2015;13:180.

Dagens D. 5 Predator publishing or fake science? A case series of 75 unsolicited emails received from ‘predator journals’. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2019;24(Suppl 1):A3-A4.

Wilkinson TA, Russell CJ, Bennett WE, Cheng ER, Carroll AE. A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e027928.

Mercier E, Tardif PA, Moore L, Le Sage N, Cameron PA. Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: a 12-month early-career researcher experience. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94(1108):104-8.

Cobey KD, de Costa E Silva M, Mazzarello S, Stober C, Hutton B, Moher D, et al. Is This conference for real? Navigating presumed predatory conference invitations. journal of oncology practice. 2017;13(7):410-3.

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Journalology. How to detect a potencial predatory/deceptive journal [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 ago 29]. Availabre from: http://www.ohri.ca/journalology/predatory-journals-resource-page.

Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res. 2018;7:1001.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28.

Cukier S, Helal L, Rice DB, Pupkaite J, Ahmadzai N, Wilson M, et al. Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):104.

Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Lalu MM, Rice DB, Raffoul H, Moher D. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026516.

Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60-5.

Kakamad FH, Salih AM, Mohammed SH. Predatory journals: evolution keeps them under the radar. Nature. 2020;580(7801):29.

Dobusch L, Heimstädt M, Mayer K, Ross-Hellauer T. Defining predatory journals: no peer review, no point. Nature. 2020;580(7801):29.

Asadi A, Rahbar N, Rezvani MJ, Asadi F. Fake/Bogus Conferences: their features and some subtle ways to differentiate them from real ones. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(2):779-84.

Mackenzie RJ. Inside a "Fake" Conference: a journey into predatory science: technology networks [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 ago 19]. Availabre from: https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/articles/inside-a-fake-conference-a-journey-into-predatory-science-321619.

Heasman PA. Unravelling the mysteries of predatory conferences. Br Dent J. 2019;226:228-30.

Mazzarello S, Fralick M, Clemons M. A simple approach for eliminating spam. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(1):e75-6.

Cortegiani A, Longhini F, Sanfilippo F, Raineri SM, Gregoretti C, Giarratano A. Predatory open-access publishing in anesthesiology. Anesth Analg. 2019;128(1):182-7.

Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.

Menon V. Hijacked journals: what they are and how to avoid them [Internet] 2019. [cited 2020 jun 10]. Availabre from: https://publons.com/blog/hijacked-journals-what-they-are-and-how-to-avoid-them/.

Aromataris E, Stern C. Supporting a definition of predatory publishing. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):125.

Think. Check. Submit [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 nov 24]. Availabre from: https://thinkchecksubmit.org/.

Silver A. Controversial website that lists 'predatory' publishers shuts down. Nature [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 January 18]. Availabre from: https://www.nature.com/news/controversial-website-that-lists-predatory-publishers-shuts-down-1.21328.

Eykens J, Guns R, Rahman AIMJ, Engels TCE. Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224541.

Sorokowski P, Kulczycki E, Sorokowska A, Pisanski K. Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature. 2017;543(7646):481-3.

Martin C, MacDonald BH. Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241972.

Downloads

Publicado

2021-08-09

Como Citar

Sousa, F. S. de O., Nadanovsky, P., Dhyppolito, I. M., & Santos, A. P. P. dos. (2021). Um ano de e-mails não solicitados: o modus operandi de revistas e editoras predatórias. Revista Da Faculdade De Odontologia De Porto Alegre, 62(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.22456/2177-0018.114115

Edição

Seção

Artigos originais