Consultant Cornea and Refractive Services, Aravind Eye Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Pondicherry, India.
Consultant Pediatric and Squint, Aravind Eye Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Pondicherry, India.
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec;69(12):3719-3725. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1639_21.
This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall's, Cabell's, Manca's, and Strinzel's list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50-500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50-3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.
本文旨在分析眼科学领域掠夺性出版的影响，确定合法期刊的标准，掠夺性期刊的特征，来源以及在标准眼科学期刊上发表科学作品之前可利用的检查点。进行了回顾性研究，并通过四个主要的所谓黑名单：Beall's、Cabell's、Manca's 和 Strinzel's list 提取了疑似眼科学掠夺性期刊的列表。然后将该期刊列表与 UGC CARE 和经过审查的视觉科学期刊白名单交叉引用，以去除合法期刊。此外，由于所有掠夺性期刊都应该是开放获取的，因此还在 Scimago 网页上搜索了所有可能类型的开放获取期刊。根据出版成本进行了粗略估计，并准备了一份查找合法期刊的真实链接列表。此外，还评估了这些掠夺性期刊渗透 PubMed 等合法索引的方法。共列出了 51 种眼科学掠夺性期刊。在 Scimago 上列出的 124 种眼科期刊中，有 38 种是开放获取的，而在掠夺性期刊上发表的费用范围为 50-500 美元，远低于合法期刊（50-3000 美元）。目前共有 13 个开放获取平台，有 10 个特征性标志可用于识别掠夺性期刊。这些期刊通过与合法期刊相似的名称渗透到了 PubMed 等合法索引中，并发表了有外部资助的文章，这些文章需要进行索引。掠夺性出版影响包括眼科学在内的各个领域的研究质量，必须加以遏制。
