Article

Is Canadian research falling prey to predatory journals?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 Comments
  • Peter Gross says:

    The problem is that the non-predatory journals are a cash-making monopoly. Imagine this business model:

    I will sell product Y. I don’t have to buy product Y, because it is given to me by others. They were paid by their government or a charity to produce product Y. I don’t even have to ensure the quality of product Y, because other makers of product Y will check if it is good; they are paid by their government or hospitals. Then people, governments, universities, and hospitals will pay huge amounts of money for product Y. By the way, my part of product Y used to be expensive, I had to typeset it, print it, mail it etc., but now most of those things are cheap and I put product Y on the internet. My expenses are far lower than they were a few years back!

    Who would not start a company with such a business model??

  • Derek Pyne says:

    I believe phrases like “falling prey” are very misleading. It implies that authors are victimized by these journals. However, my recent research finds that authors publishing in these journals may benefit more than authors publishing in legitimate journals. See http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jsp.48.3.137

  • Cynthia Leung says:

    I have also noticed many bogus journals and publishers aggressively looking for submission of articles. It would be helpful if there is a list that can be readily available to researchers to search, so that they can quickly identify them and not fall into trap. The other observation I have is that the open access of selected articles or journals on the internet is discouraging people to search valid databases such as MEDLINE to identify other articles that may be important to review but not readily available because they are not “free” on the internet. This open access has created a bias in how selected information is available to the public, thereby skewing the public viewpoint. This can be dangerous especially when pharma companies are paying for public access of selected articles with positive results for their marketed drugs but articles with negative results are being ignored.
    https://drugopinions.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/sweet-the-journal-article-is-free-on-the-internet/

Authors

Karen Palmer

Contributor

Karen is the Destination Development and Marketing Coordinator at The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward.

Timothy Caulfield

Contributor

Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta and author of the book Relax Dammit! A User’s Guide to the Age of Anxiety (Penguin Random House, 2020).

Maureen Taylor

Contributor

Maureen Taylor is a Physician Assistant who worked as a medical journalist and television reporter for the CBC for two decades.

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more