Thread by @KyleSiler

New in @nature w/ @philvlam, @csugimoto + @lariviev:

The article has 2 main parts:

1) We chronicle rebranding + bootlegging as new predatory publishing tactics.

2) We argue that open peer review is the best way to kill the Hydra of predatory journals.
nature.com/articles/d4158…

We focus on the case of OMICS International, the infamous predatory publisher who was recently slapped w/ a $50m USD fine for deceptive business practices (@FTC). OMICS is responding to this stigma by creating new journal brands. OMICS goes as far to 'retcon' old articles.

As a couple of examples, using the Wayback Machine to access the initial OMICS publications, here's OMICS erasing the OMICS branding in new 'Hilaris' and 'Longdom' brands. Using #OA publishing to retroactively alter the scholarly record is a disconcerting precedent.

Upon further investigation, some OMICS articles have bizarre names and/or affiliations. Turns out, these articles were directly stolen from a legitimate @Elsevier journal. We identified 9 different articles stolen directly from the journal Bone Reports, mostly in 2020.

Turns out, OMICS is bootlegging legitimate articles, manipulating them slightly, then backdating them and presenting the articles as content.

The text manipulation is serious, but sometimes has comical outcomes. E.g. look at what happens to the words "an" + "standard deviation."

OMICS is probably the worst of the worst predatory publishers (and unfortunately, one of the largest). This fraud is not particularly sophisticated, but it's hiding in plain sight. If OMICS doesn't get more clever in the future, someone else will.

Science would benefit from the eradication of predatory journals, as well as improvement of practices for quasi-predatory legitimate journals. Thus, we propose open peer review or some sort of stakeholder audit of journals.

Instead of using "blacklists" and "whitelists" to determine legitimacy, let's look at the actual content (or lack thereof) of what journals provide. Predatory journals could not fake legitimate peer review. Quasi-predators would reveal perfunctory, inferior or ignored review.

We can continually engage in the Sisyphean task of repeatedly cauterizing heads of the metaphorical Hydra of predatory publishing, or we can serious action.

Online publishing means that peer reviews can be archived easily. 21st century science should not be stuck with 19th century publishing norms. Education and changing incentives for scholars are good, but the only way to completely starve predatory journals is with transparency.

We hope this article will spark discussion and develop new ideas for implementing policies that will kill predators, while also improving legitimate journals.

Special thanks to @Monya_science for shepherding this article from conception to publication!