• DOI:10.1038/549023a
• Corpus ID: 4387171

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

@article{Moher2017StopTW,
  title={Stop this waste of people, animals and money},
  author={David Moher and Larissa Shamseer and Kelly Denise Cobey and Manoj Mathew Lalu and James Galipeau and Marc T. Avey and Nadera Ahmadzai and Mostafa Alabousi and Pauline Barbeau and Andrew Beck and Raymond Daniel and Robert A Frank and Mona Ghannad and Candyce Hamel and Mona Hersi and Brian Hutton and Inga Isupov and Trevor A. McGrath and Matthew D. F. McInnes and Matthew J. Page and Misty Pratt and Kusala Pussegoda and Beverley J. Shea and Anubhav Srivastava and Adrienne Stevens and Kednapa Thavorn and Sasha van Katwyk and Roxanne E. Ward and Dianna Wolfe and Fatemeh Yazdi and Ashley M. Yu and Hedyeh Ziai},
  journal={Nature},
  year={2017},
  volume={549},
  pages={23-25}
}

• D. Moher, L. Shamseer, +29 authors H. Ziai
• Published 7 September 2017
• Economics
• Nature

Our evidence disputes this view. We spent 12 months rigorously characterizing nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 journals thought likely to be predatory. More than half of the corresponding authors hailed from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Of the 17% of sampled articles that reported a funding source, the most frequently named funder was the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The United States produced more articles in our sample than all other countries save India. Harvard University (with 9 articles) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the University of Texas (with Predatory journals are easy to please. They seem to accept papers with little regard for quality, at a fraction of the cost charged by mainstream openaccess journals. These supposedly scholarly publishing entities are murky operations, making money by collecting fees while failing to deliver on their claims of being open access and failing to provide services such as peer review and archiving. Despite abundant evidence that the bar is low, not much is known about who publishes in this shady realm, and what the papers are like. Common wisdom assumes that the hazard of predatory publishing is restricted mainly to the developing world. In one famous sting, a journalist for Science sent a purposely flawed paper to 140 presumed predatory titles (and to a roughly equal number of other open-access titles), pretending to be a biologist based in African capital cities. At least two earlier, smaller surveys found that most authors were in India or elsewhere in Asia. A campaign to warn scholars about predatory journals has concentrated its efforts in Africa, China, India, the Middle East and Russia. Frequent, aggressive solicitations from predatory publishers are generally considered merely a nuisance for scientists from rich countries, not a threat to scholarly integrity. Stop this waste of people, animals and money