Direct dating blacklist
Whitelists are good and important, but they serve a very different purpose.For example, a publisher’s absence from a whitelist doesn’t necessarily signal to us that the publisher should be avoided.Apparently not, in light of the DOAJ’s recent experience.Furthermore, it’s not just about whether authors are being fooled; it’s also about whether predatory publishers help authors to fool others.This is perhaps the largest category of deceptive publisher, and also one of the more controversial ones, since the line between dishonesty and simple ineptitude or organic mediocrity can be fuzzy.For this reason, it makes sense to exercise caution in ascribing deceptive intent to these journals; however, in many cases (such as those that falsely claim to have an Impact Factor, that lie about their peer-review processes, or that falsely claim editorial board members), deceptive intent can be quite clear. These are scam operators that set up websites designed to trick the unwary into believing that they are submitting their work to legitimate existing journals—sometimes by “hijacking” the exact title of the real journal, and sometimes by concocting a new title that varies from the legitimate one only very slightly. This looks like a variety of hijacking, except that there is no actual hijackee.Furthermore, “deception” is (unlike “predation”) a concept with a fairly clear and unambiguous meaning in this context.
One notable example from a few years ago was the , which was published by Elsevier and presented to the world as a journal of objective scholarship, but was later revealed as a promotional sock-puppet for a pharmaceutical company—one such journal among several, as it turned out.(Are there other significant manifestations of deceptive publishing in the scholcomm space? The prospect of setting up a blacklist raises a number of difficult and important questions.Here are some of them, followed by my suggested answers: Focusing on the journal at the title level is probably the best general approach, since not every such journal is part of a suite of titles put forward by a publishing organization.In an earlier posting, I suggested that the term “predatory publishing” has perhaps become too vague and subjective to be useful, and I suggested “bad faith” as a possible replacement term.But in light of the subsequent discussion in the comments section of that posting and after continuing to think about the issue, I’d like to suggest another alternative to “predatory,” one that offers more precision and usefulness: “deceptive.” Deception, it seems to me, is the common thread that binds all of the behaviors that are most commonly cited as “predatory” in journal publishing, and I think it’s the most meaningful and appropriate criterion for placing a publisher on a blacklist.