EDITORIAL
Predatory and deceptive publishing practices now target nurses I have been very involved in the arena of publishing ethics as the editor of this journal, and unfortunately, I have had to issue retractions and report unethical behavior of authors and researchers. My interest and involvement in publishing ethics led to my election as a member of the Governing Council of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2012 and to frequent requests to speak on publication ethics to a variety of audiences. Despite massive efforts by many groups and organizations such as COPE to alert authors, researchers, clinicians, and academics to the world of unethical behavior in publishing, we are still struggling with many of the same problems: plagiarism, duplicate publication, contested authorship, and now, predatory behaviors on the part of for-profit publishers who take advantage of authors who must publish to gain promotion, tenure, job advancement, or elite status for their facilities. Predatory and deceptive publishing practices have been highlighted in public media and scholarly venues (Pierson, 2014). Now, nurse authors have become a target of these predatory publishers. I am proud to say in the next breath that nurse editors have become a significant voice in opposition to this growing problem. Nurse editors have for more than 30 years nurtured a “non-organization” called the International Academy of Nurse Editors, or INANE as we lovingly call it. At the 33rd annual INANE meeting in Portland, ME, in August 2014 we began a yearlong campaign to educate our readers about predatory publishing practices. A result of that meeting was an article published in the September 2014 issue of Nurse Author & Editor by the INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative (http://www.nurseauthoreditor.com/ article.asp?id=261). I encourage everyone to read it for a better understanding of open access (OA) publishing and how to avoid selecting journals that engage in unethical practices. Predatory publishers have perverted the laudable goal of making science more available to a broader audience by publishing anything, fake science and even sentences randomly generated by a computer program, for a fee and calling it peer-reviewed scientific literature (Pierson, 2014). It is important to remember that not all OA publication is suspect. Publishers have to remain in business and to do so, they rely on several business models: subscription based, where readers pay for access to published articles; OA, where authors pay to have their work published so
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 26 (2014) 583 C 2014 American Association of Nurse Practitioners
that readers have free access to articles; and controlled circulation where advertisers support the free distribution of the publication to the widest possible, albeit targeted, audience. Many journals combine all three models to support the ever-increasing costs of fulfillment and distribution of scholarly content. The critical factors to consider when selecting a journal to read, cite, or submit work to are contained in the document Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, 2014). These guidelines are the criteria by which journals are evaluated when they apply for membership in COPE as well as in other curated lists such as the Directory of OA Journals (DOAJ) or the INANE Directory of Nursing Journals (http://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/). We must be knowledgeable about ethics in writing, reviewing, and publishing if we are to mentor the next generation of nurse scholars and preserve the integrity of our scientific record. We need to know that our work in nursing science is discoverable, citable, and archived for future scholars to use to move our science forward. We need to know that the science we continue to build has a solid base as peer-reviewed, ethical, and replicable work from our past. We need to know our journals adhere to best practices in publishing. As mentors, leaders, and role models, we cannot expect students and novice nurse authors and researchers to do what is ethical if we are not modeling that behavior. It is for this reason that INANE has issued the call to action for nurse editors to participate in a yearlong campaign to “. . . spread the word and disarm the threat together” (INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative, 2014) because predatory publishers threaten the preservation of nursing science in very real ways.
Charon A. Pierson, PhD, GNP, FAAN, FAANP Editor-in-Chief
References Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2014). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative. (2014). Predatory publishing: What editors need to know. Nurse Author & Editor, 24(3), 1. Pierson, C. A. (2014). Fake science and peer review: Who is minding the gate? American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26, 1–2. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12092
583
Copyright of Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Predatory and deceptive publishing practices now target nurses I have been very involved in the arena of publishing ethics as the editor of this journal, and unfortunately, I have had to issue retractions and report unethical behavior of authors and researchers. My interest and involvement in publishing ethics led to my election as a member of the Governing Council of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2012 and to frequent requests to speak on publication ethics to a variety of audiences. Despite massive efforts by many groups and organizations such as COPE to alert authors, researchers, clinicians, and academics to the world of unethical behavior in publishing, we are still struggling with many of the same problems: plagiarism, duplicate publication, contested authorship, and now, predatory behaviors on the part of for-profit publishers who take advantage of authors who must publish to gain promotion, tenure, job advancement, or elite status for their facilities. Predatory and deceptive publishing practices have been highlighted in public media and scholarly venues (Pierson, 2014). Now, nurse authors have become a target of these predatory publishers. I am proud to say in the next breath that nurse editors have become a significant voice in opposition to this growing problem. Nurse editors have for more than 30 years nurtured a “non-organization” called the International Academy of Nurse Editors, or INANE as we lovingly call it. At the 33rd annual INANE meeting in Portland, ME, in August 2014 we began a yearlong campaign to educate our readers about predatory publishing practices. A result of that meeting was an article published in the September 2014 issue of Nurse Author & Editor by the INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative (http://www.nurseauthoreditor.com/ article.asp?id=261). I encourage everyone to read it for a better understanding of open access (OA) publishing and how to avoid selecting journals that engage in unethical practices. Predatory publishers have perverted the laudable goal of making science more available to a broader audience by publishing anything, fake science and even sentences randomly generated by a computer program, for a fee and calling it peer-reviewed scientific literature (Pierson, 2014). It is important to remember that not all OA publication is suspect. Publishers have to remain in business and to do so, they rely on several business models: subscription based, where readers pay for access to published articles; OA, where authors pay to have their work published so
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 26 (2014) 583 C 2014 American Association of Nurse Practitioners
that readers have free access to articles; and controlled circulation where advertisers support the free distribution of the publication to the widest possible, albeit targeted, audience. Many journals combine all three models to support the ever-increasing costs of fulfillment and distribution of scholarly content. The critical factors to consider when selecting a journal to read, cite, or submit work to are contained in the document Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, 2014). These guidelines are the criteria by which journals are evaluated when they apply for membership in COPE as well as in other curated lists such as the Directory of OA Journals (DOAJ) or the INANE Directory of Nursing Journals (http://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/). We must be knowledgeable about ethics in writing, reviewing, and publishing if we are to mentor the next generation of nurse scholars and preserve the integrity of our scientific record. We need to know that our work in nursing science is discoverable, citable, and archived for future scholars to use to move our science forward. We need to know that the science we continue to build has a solid base as peer-reviewed, ethical, and replicable work from our past. We need to know our journals adhere to best practices in publishing. As mentors, leaders, and role models, we cannot expect students and novice nurse authors and researchers to do what is ethical if we are not modeling that behavior. It is for this reason that INANE has issued the call to action for nurse editors to participate in a yearlong campaign to “. . . spread the word and disarm the threat together” (INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative, 2014) because predatory publishers threaten the preservation of nursing science in very real ways.
Charon A. Pierson, PhD, GNP, FAAN, FAANP Editor-in-Chief
References Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2014). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative. (2014). Predatory publishing: What editors need to know. Nurse Author & Editor, 24(3), 1. Pierson, C. A. (2014). Fake science and peer review: Who is minding the gate? American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26, 1–2. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12092
583
Copyright of Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
