Home > Journals > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio > Past Issues > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Marzo;17(1) > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Marzo;17(1):1-6

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

EDITORIALE   Freefree

La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Marzo;17(1):1-6

DOI: 10.23736/S1825-859X.21.00096-7

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: Italian

Predatory journals

Piero CAPPELLETTI 1 , Nicola BIZZARO 2, Romolo M. DORIZZI 3

1 SIPMeL, Castelfranco Veneto, Treviso, Italia; 2 Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale Sant’Antonio, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Tolmezzo, Udine, Italia; 3 UOC Patologia Clinica, Laboratorio Unico della Romagna, Pievesestina di Cesena, Forlì-Cesena, Italia



The most recent definition of predatory publishing is the following: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” The phenomenon is increasingly spreading: more than 10,000 journals potentially predators against just over 11,000 legitimate journals, according to Cabell’s International; in the past three years, 3% of articles included in Scopus come from predatory journals. The motivations and reasons for selecting predatory journals are various, mainly the publishing pressure and the unawareness of the reputation of the journal; nevertheless, not only naïve authors or researchers from low-income countries publish on these journals. Actions against the phenomenon from some stakeholders are the following: a more precise definition of “predatory journals,” the use of “blacklist” and “whitelist” following the Beall’s experience, the “Think. Check. Submit. Initiative” by the publishers for recognizing editorial best practice, the diffusion of the preprints to diminish the reasons for publishing on predatory journals. However, in our opinion, the central issue is a good peer review, not only as a proof of quality of the journal but also as a professional development tool for authors, reviewers and editors.


KEY WORDS: Predatory journals; Catalog, publisher; Peer review

top of page