Responses

Download PDFPDF

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    In the grey zone, there is no peer review

    This article makes headlines by arguing that the majority of researchers publishing in predatory journals, as surveyed by them, actually received peer review and found it helpful. But hidden away in the text of the article itself is the acknowledgment that of the 20 participants who said they would be willing to share a review, only one did (by pasting the review into the survey) and one other author shared an article proof rather than an actual review. The remaining 18 participants did not follow through with sharing their reviews. In other words, of the 65 authors who said their paper underwent peer review, only one provided any evidence that it actually did. This raises the question of whether the participants are merely saying that their publication experience was positive in order to legitimise their publication choices after the fact or whether they actually underwent peer review. I think we should all be very careful with this data until it is replicated by testing these journal's procedures directly.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Presumed predatory journals
    • Rodney P Jones, Statistical Advisor Healthcare Analysis & Forecasting

    As an independent researcher I simply cannot afford to publish in open access 'quality' journals. The so-called predatory journals in which I have published have provided an excellent service and the quality of the peer review has been good and led to significant revision of the manuscript. On the occasions I have attempted to submit to 'quality' journals I have been disappointed by reviewers comments which showed a poor grasp of the issues in the manuscript. I know the editor of one of these presumed predatory journals who is a respected researcher and who gets very frustrated over the predatory label which may, on occasions. be perceived to be 'quality' journals protecting their patch.
    Clearly you need to do your homework before publishing, but in my opinion there is room for new entrants in the field.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.