Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe escalation in open-access publishing has fueled the rise of questionable businesses, namely, ‘predatory’ journals. Predatory journals and their publishers seek manuscripts through aggressive electronic solicitation and execute flawed peer-review practices, consequently undermining the scholarly record and current research cultures, globally. As these journals are not indexed in any legitimate databases, the research they publish is often undiscoverable and fails to be disseminated to a worldwide readership. Acknowledging this threat to the credibility of science, this article aims to alert researchers at various levels of their career of the increasing global issue of predatory journals, and offer helpful advice and resources for identifying and avoiding them. RésuméL’essor de la publication en accès libre a alimenté l’expansion d’entreprises douteuses, à savoir des revues « prédatrices ». Les revues prédatrices et leurs éditeurs recherchent des manuscrits au moyen de requêtes électroniques agressives et effectuent des évaluations erronées par les pairs, compromettant ainsi les archives scientifiques et les présentes cultures de recherche dans l’ensemble. Puisque ces revues ne sont pas répertoriées dans des bases de données légitimes, la recherche qu’elles publient est souvent introuvable et ne parvient pas à être diffusée à un lectorat mondial. En reconnaissant cette menace à la crédibilité scientifique, cet article vise à alerter les chercheurs à diverses étapes de leur carrière du problème global croissant que constituent les revues prédatrices, et à leur offrir des conseils utiles et des ressources permettant de les identifier et de les éviter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchScholarly communication Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchScholarly communicationResearch integrity Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".