Predatory Journals, Science Citation Index and Open Access Publications in Diagnostic Pathology

  • Klaus Kayser Charite - Berlin
  • Stephan Borkenfeld IAT, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Gian Kayser Institute of Surgical Pathology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany

Abstract

Background:


Predatory behavior in open access peer reviewed scientific journals seems to be increasing. It is subject to serious discussions between editors, authors, and publishers. Herein we discuss some characteristics of electronic communication in science, the reasons for potential misuse, and present some entropy calculations.


Theoretical considerations:


Publication of research articles uses visual information transfer, and seldom acoustic communication. Advantages of open access electronic journals include prompt and worldwide distribution, free access, and several free re-use rights. Disadvantages might be seen in non congruent business models of authors and publishers, which include impact of financial issues on scientific quality and easy to perform, hard to detect manipulation of published data and their sources.


Present stage:


Citation Index (SI) and Journal Impact Factor (JIP) are the principal sources which are thought to guarantee the article’s quality and author’s prestige. Authors try to publish in and publishers try to offer journals with high SI and JIP. Independent review processes should serve to maintain the article’s quality. Reviewers are invited electronically in both conventional paper printed and electronically distributed journals. They are requested to act at their earliest convenience. Reviews are as all fast electronic information distribution exposed to become manipulated, in politics, commerce, and science as well.


Proposal and perspectives:


Electronic information exchange uses properties of virtual reality, which include the reversibility of time. They are scalable events and can be measured by an appropriate entropy concept. Authors can be considered information source that should be understood by the readers (receiver). The higher the information content the more precise is the reaction of the receiver. The readers’ reaction can be measured and be used to classify, modify, correct, or even erase the distributed information. The development of appropriate readers’ tools would improve the quality and originality of the article and journal.  


Conclusion: A readers’ oriented model would be an appropriate extension of quality assurance for open access journals and articles. Such a model could be based upon the entropy concept and be a reliable measure of research quality and impact on its future development.

References

1. Poltronieri, E., et al., Science, institutional archives and open access: an overview and a pilot survey on the Italian cancer research institutions. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 29: p. 168.
2. Jefferies, D., et al., The importance of academic literacy for undergraduate nursing students and its relationship to future professional clinical practice: A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 60: p. 84-91.
3. Sarkies, M.N., et al., The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 12(1): p. 132.
4. Schiff, G.D., et al., Diagnosing Diagnosis Errors: Lessons from a Multi-institutional Collaborative Project and Methodology). 2005.
5. elsevier. [cited.
6. springer. [cited.
7. Karabag, S.F. and C. Berggren, Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals. PLoS One. 11(7): p. e0159492.
8. Rada, R., A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients. J Med Internet Res, 2005. 7(2): p. e18.
9. Neuhaus, C. and H.-D. Daniel, Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview. Journal of Documentation, 2008. 64. (2): p. 193-210,.
10. Abad-Garcia, M.F., et al., [Self-archiving of biomedical papers in open access repositories]. Rev Neurol. 50(7): p. 431-40.
11. Beall, J., Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition). Scholarly Open Access, 2012.
12. Beall, J., Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 2012. 489(7415): p. 179.
13. Sukhov, A., B. Burrall, and E. Maverakis, The history of open access medical publishing: a comprehensive review. Dermatol Online J. 22(9).
14. Tennant, J.P., et al., The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Res. 5: p. 632.
15. Hudson, L.N., et al., Inselect: Automating the Digitization of Natural History Collections. PLoS One. 10(11): p. e0143402.
16. Görtler, J., et al., Cognitive Algorithms and digitized Tissue – based Diagnosis. Diagnostic Pathology, 2017. 3: p. 1.
17. Kayser, K. and H.J. Gabius, The application of thermodynamic principles to histochemical and morphometric tissue research: principles and practical outline with focus on the glycosciences. Cell Tissue Res, 1999. 296(3): p. 443-55.
18. Kayser, K., et al., AI (artificial intelligence) in histopathology--from image analysis to automated diagnosis. Folia Histochem Cytobiol, 2009. 47(3): p. 355-61.
19. Voss, K. and H. Süsse, Praktische Bildverarbeitung. 1991: München, Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag.
20. Voß, K., Entropie als statistisches Strukturmaß. Wiss Z Techn Univs Dresden 1970. 19: p. 1415-1419.
21. Kayser, G., et al., The application of structural entropy in tissue based diagnosis. Diagnostic Pathology, 2017. 3(1): p. 251.
22. Carl, S., Study finds huge increase in articles published by 'predatory' journals. InsideHigherED, 2015. 10(01).
23. Shen, C. and B.-C. Björk, 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 2015. 13(1): p. 230.
24. guide, j. [cited.
25. science, w.o. [cited.
26. selector, j. [cited.
27. Butler, D., Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 2013. 495(7442): p. 433-5.
28. Borkenfeld, S., Specificities of Electronic Publication in Medicine. Diagnostic Pathology, 2015. 1(3).
Published
2017-12-16
How to Cite
KAYSER, Klaus; BORKENFELD, Stephan; KAYSER, Gian. Predatory Journals, Science Citation Index and Open Access Publications in Diagnostic Pathology. Diagnostic Pathology, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, dec. 2017. ISSN 2364-4893. Available at: <http://www.diagnosticpathology.eu/content/index.php/dpath/article/view/254>. Date accessed: 24 jan. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.17629/www.diagnosticpathology.eu-2017-3:254.
Section
Research