Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences:what every expert needs to know about this“parasitic”publishing model

The emergence of the internet has transformed all areas of society.This includes the universe of scientific publications,with several publishers now exclusively focusing on the electronic format and open access model while expanding to a megajournal scope.in this context,the pandemic of predatory open access journals(POAJs)and meetings are of grave concern to the academic and research community.This new shift within academia produces a variety of new victims;namely,the authors themselves.in turn,scientific knowledge is often discredited,with the public placing less trust in science.Now more than ever,performing research with integrity and selecting a journal in which to publish requires close attention and expertise.The“predatory movement”has developed increasingly sophisticated techniques for misleading people into believing what seem to be credible professional layouts and legitimate invitations.initiatives such as the Jeffrey Beall’s list,the Cabell’s Scholarly Analytics and Think.Check.Submit offer some guidance to uncover the“parasitic”intervention of predatory journals and meetings,but specific education in this field is sorely needed.This work aims to review the main characteristics of predatory journals and meetings and to analyze this topic in the context of forensic and legal medicine research.

Implications of Publication Requirements for the Research Output of Ukrainian Academics in Scopus in 1999-2019

Purpose:This article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus in 1999-2019.As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies.Design/methodology/approach:Three metrics were chosen to analyse the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output:publications in predatory journals,publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective.Findings:Study results highlight,that,firstly,publications of Ukrainian authors in predatory journals rose to 1%in 2019.Secondly,the share of publications in local journals reached the peak of 47.3%in 2015.In 2019 it fell to 31.8%.Thirdly,though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011,but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2.To summarise,the study findings highligh,that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria.Research limitation:The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements.Practical implications:The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies.Originality/value:This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus.