|LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 354
Comment on “scrutinizing predatory journals in pharmacology and calculating their predatory rate”
Fahmi Hussein Kakamad1, Shvan Hussein Mohammed2, Abdulwahid Mohammed Salih3
1 Kscien Organization for Scientific Research, Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Sulaimani; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Kurdistan, Iraq
2 Kscien Organization for Scientific Research, Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Kurdistan, Iraq
3 Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Kurdistan, Iraq
|Date of Submission||23-Jul-2019|
|Date of Decision||16-Oct-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||20-Oct-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||26-Nov-2019|
Dr. Fahmi Hussein Kakamad
Doctor City, Sulaimani
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Kakamad FH, Mohammed SH, Salih AM. Comment on “scrutinizing predatory journals in pharmacology and calculating their predatory rate”. Indian J Pharmacol 2019;51:354
|How to cite this URL:|
Kakamad FH, Mohammed SH, Salih AM. Comment on “scrutinizing predatory journals in pharmacology and calculating their predatory rate”. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Feb 25];51:354. Available from: http://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2019/51/5/354/271638
It was our interest to read Sharma et al.'s article about predatory journals in pharmacology. In a categorical method, the authors assessed the predatory ratio of the pharmacology journals listed in the Beall list. This effort needs to be sanctified and motivated because the predators scattered countless unsound papers that weakened the medical practice.
The critiques concerning the paper are as the followings. First, the authors stated that their criteria for selecting the predatory journals were included in the Beall's list. As it is clear for all, it has not been updated since January 2017. This is a source of bias as predatory publishing is evolving and growing unceasingly. Furthermore, there are several journals and publishers that proved to be legitimate later that were mistakenly enlisted by Beall such as Frontiers and International Journal of Electrochemical Science. The current recommendation is to use Kscien list which is a daily updating blacklist of Kscien Organization For Scientific Research. A quick search in the Kscien list of predatory standalone journals showed more titles (22 vs. 21). Second, the authors explored only the stand-alone list; this may also show error in the sampling as they missed predatory pharmacology journals from the list of the publishers. A speedy search in the predatory publishers (only letter A) found more than 50 journals containing pharma or pharmacology in their titles. Third, the authors used the modified work of Dadkhah and Bianciardi in which all the predatory features weighted almost equally. This is not a logic judgment and unsupported by data. For example, it is unfair to weigh the number of editors against fake metrics and false indexing. Simply, a journal may accidentally have few editors, but lying to deceive the authors (false indexing and/or fake metrics) is an intentional predatory feature.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| » References|| |
Sharma K, Rani M, Sharma L. Scrutinizing predator journals in pharmacology and calculating their predatory rate. Indian J Pharmacol 2019;51:208-11. [Full text]
Omer J, Mohammed SH, Salih RQ, Kakamad FH, Mikael TM, Mohammed KK, et al
. Predatory journals in psychiatry. Lancet Psychiatry 2019;6:564-5.
Kakamad F, Mohammed S, Najar K, Qadr G, Ahmed J, Mohammed K, et al
. Kscien's list; A new strategy to hoist predatory journals and publishers. Int J Surg Open 2019;17:5-7.