References
- Lee, H., Kim, H., Kim, S., Chun, K., & Shin, J. (2019). Features and preventive measures of predatory publishing. NRF ISSUE REPORT, 1, 1-29.
- Seo, T., & Jung, Y. (2018). Create a transparent academic publishing ecosystem: The problems and solutions of predatory publication. KISTI ISSUE BRIEF, 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22810/2018KIB001
- Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179-179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
- Beall, J. (2013a). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC, 11(2), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525
- Beall, J. (2013b). Index copernicus has no value. scholarly open access. Archived from the original on 2014-04-03. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
- Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrived from https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
- Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com.
- Beaubien, S., & Eckard, M. (2014). Addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1133. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1133
- Blas, N., Rele, S., & Kennedy, M. R. (2019). The development of the journal evaluation tool to evaluate the credibility of publication venues. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 7(1), eP2250. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2250
- Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 525(7575), 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f
- Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing It!. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.15171/apb.2016.001
- Dadkhah, M., & Borchardt, G. (2016). Hijacked journals: An emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 36(6), 739-741. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw026
- DOAJ. Retrieved from https://www.doaj.org/
- Frandsen, T. (2019). How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1230
- Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031
- Radom, R., Feltner-Reichert, M., & Stringer-Stanback, K. (2012). SPEC Kit 332: Organization of scholarly communication services. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.29242/spec.332
- Regier, R. (2018). The institutionalized racism of scholarly publishing. Retrieved from https://awayofhappening.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-institutionalized-racism-of-scholarly-publishing/
- Scudellari, M. (2015). "[T]hese things can happen in every lab: Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings." Retraction Watch. Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/02/mutant-plant-paper-uprooted-after-authors-cor rect-their-own-findings/
- Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., ... & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
- Shen, C., & Bjork, B. (2015). 'Predatory' open acceess: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
- Think. Check. Submit. Retrieved from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/