Fighting ‘predators’ with research ethics and responsible evaluation
The theme of this year's International Open Access Week is 'Community over Commercialization'. It encourages reflection on which approaches to open scholarship prioritize the best interests of the public and the academic community – and which do not.
When it comes to Open Access issues, the bad guy might be the commercial publisher, the library, the research funder, the ministry, the researcher, or the university – depending on who you ask. However, everyone seems to agree that 'predatory publishing' is harmful to both science, researchers and society.
The concerns raised by predatory publishing have caused reputational damage to honest Open Access publishers. This is because predatory publishers often collect Article Processing Charges in the same way as gold OA publishers, but do not actually carry out the essential functions of an academic publisher, such as peer-review, editing, description, or long-term preservation.
The level of professionalism of dishonest operators varies, and there are several types of them. To learn more about the distinguishing characteristic of predatory publishing, see e.g. the Iowa State University Library's informative guide on Understanding Predatory Publishers.
Not a widespread problem in Finland
Publishing with predatory publishers does not seem to be a widespread problem in Finland. For example, among the peer-reviewed journal and conference articles reported for 2021, there were only 15 publications that had appeared on journals listed on Cabell's Predatory Reports, (according to Pölönen & Pylvänäinen, in Finnish only).
One reason may be that Finnish higher education institutions are committed to following the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and information and training on ethical principles is provided. The Research Integrity guidelines provide, for example, the definitions of disregard for good research practice and research misconduct.
On the other hand, it is also worth remembering that the definition of ‘predatory publishing’ is by no means unambiguous. There is a large grey area where the boundaries of good practice and ethics are stretched. The limitations of various safelists and watchlists have been discussed by Koerber et al., among others. It is therefore important for researchers and academic librarians to learn how to assess the reliability of publication channels themselves.
A wider range of assessment criteria would reduce pressure to publish
The emphasis on publications in research evaluation increases the pressure on researchers to publish results quickly, exacerbating the problem especially in countries where evaluation is based solely on the number of English-language publications without any quality measures.
Already in 2019, the Tampere University signed the DORA Declaration, which recommends transparency and diversity in research assessment. Tampere University of Applied Sciences and Tampere University have also signed the CoARA Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, which obligates, among other things, to favour qualitative assessment, to reject inappropriate use of publication channel-based metrics, and to develop assessment criteria in collaboration with researchers at different career stages.
Authored by Information Specialist Anna Ruth
