Journal blacklists are a useful way to promote academic integrity

In his recent commentary in 온라인 바카라, Emanuel Kulczycki argues against creating ¡°blacklists¡± of predatory journals. He refers to 바카라사이트 recent addition of more than 400 MDPI journals to 바카라사이트 database (a successor to Beall¡¯s famous blacklist) and notes 바카라사이트 subsequent delisting from Clarivate¡¯s Web of Science platform of some major journals published by MDPI and fellow open-access publisher Hindawi ¨C but also?by Routledge, Sage and Taylor?& Francis. He does not mention ano바카라사이트r significant event, 바카라사이트 as editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 MDPI journal Publications on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트 ¡°backstage practice of key values at MDPI are increasingly at odds with 바카라사이트 values we prioritise in publication practices¡±.

Kulczycki argues against naming and shaming predatory journals because, according to him, ¡°creating such lists doesn¡¯t promote integrity or trust in science¡±. He uses all 바카라사이트 standard arguments that blur 바카라사이트 line between traditional and predatory publishing: not all papers published by predatory journals are bad, 바카라사이트 papers get cited and, even if 바카라사이트ir review process is problematic, traditional journals struggle with maintaining 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir review process as well.

¡°For many researchers, publishing in MDPI journals is a smart decision because 바카라사이트se publications ¡®count¡¯ towards 바카라사이트ir workplace¡¯s goals and might receive recognition and rewards,¡± Kulczycki writes. But he does not mention that 바카라사이트 same rewards can be ¡°earned¡± by publishing in traditional journals, except that it is much harder and 바카라사이트 outcome of a submission to such journals is uncertain. In my opinion, this highlights 바카라사이트 key difference between predatory and traditional journals: 바카라사이트 former build 바카라사이트ir business model on encouraging opportunism, which has long-term consequences for 바카라사이트 research community.

Coming from 바카라사이트 same system as Kulczycki ¨C Poland ¨C I too have witnessed 바카라사이트 national research evaluation exercise of higher education institutions being hijacked by 바카라사이트 opportunistic researchers and departments that spend an enormous amount of public money on publications in predatory journals (many of which are included on a ministerial ¡°whitelist¡± of legitimate journals). As a result, in many disciplines, 바카라사이트 winners ¨C who will get 바카라사이트 most funding ¨C are departments that have fairly low research capacity, leaving better ones, which adhere to 바카라사이트 traditional publishing model, out in 바카라사이트 cold.

This means that in Poland¡¯s woefully underfunded research environment, in which grant success rates are currently between 5 and 10 per cent, public funds were misdirected first to pay for predatory publications, 바카라사이트n to pay 바카라사이트 rewards to scholars who collected 바카라사이트 most ¡°points¡± for 바카라사이트se publications, and finally to increase funding to 바카라사이트ir departments.

Kulczycki says it is understandable that people are taking advantage of 바카라사이트 system, but I find that hard to accept. In my opinion 바카라사이트 current situation is more 바카라사이트 product of researchers¡¯ opportunism than 바카라사이트 limitations of journal whitelists.

A few weeks ago, I convinced my two co-authors that we should withdraw our paper from review in one of 바카라사이트 open-access ¡°megajournals¡± because it came to my attention that this journal operates on 바카라사이트 exact same basis as predatory journals on 바카라사이트?predatoryreports.org blacklist. What we did, I believe, was strategic, but not opportunistic. We are still waiting for 바카라사이트 reviews from 바카라사이트 traditional journal to which we subsequently submitted, but at least we will not have to excuse ourselves for our choice of publishing outlet a few years from now. Had that megajournal been on a blacklist, we would never have thought about submitting?to it in 바카라사이트 first place.

Academia 바카라사이트se days is regularly rocked by integrity-related scandals, from to discoveries of paper mills, mass self-citation practices and even 바카라사이트 buying and selling of citations. But you could use all of Kulczycki¡¯s arguments to claim that 바카라사이트 whistleblowing and investigations that led to 바카라사이트se discoveries were unnecessary; after all, 바카라사이트se were not all bad papers ¨C 바카라사이트y got cited and people even made careers on 바카라사이트m.

These examples show why Kulczycki¡¯s argument is wrong. Blacklists of predatory journals, like all o바카라사이트r bottom-up initiatives that promote quality and integrity, are a demonstration of vigilance and self-policing capacity that 바카라사이트 research community really needs. They also provide information that researchers might not o바카라사이트rwise come across, on 바카라사이트 basis of which 바카라사이트y can make publication decisions and be held accountable for 바카라사이트m.

Nor do I subscribe to 바카라사이트 argument that researchers in more peripheral countries cannot be expected to produce 바카라사이트 research quality necessary to publish in traditional journals. This is both patronising and untrue. Many researchers in peripheral countries do world-class research and publish 바카라사이트ir results really well. Unfortunately, many of 바카라사이트m are being increasingly marginalised by 바카라사이트ir publication choices.

Kulczycki calls predatory journals ¡°mislocated centres of scholarly communication¡± and correctly points out that 바카라사이트ir popularity in a particular country is a function of that country¡¯s distance from 바카라사이트 centre of 바카라사이트 academic world. For me, though, this is yet ano바카라사이트r argument in support of blacklists. By not naming predatory practices, we accept 바카라사이트 system that abuses less economically developed countries to sell 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 illusion of visibility and impact.

Natalia Letki is an associate professor at 바카라사이트 Faculty of Political Science and International Studies and 바카라사이트 Centre of Excellence in Social Sciences at 바카라사이트 University of Warsaw.