Yağmacı Dergiler ve Yayınevleri
Özet
Yağmacı dergiler ve yayıncılık, açık erişim modelleri ve akademik teşvikleri istismar eden, yaygın ve küresel bir olgudur. Genellikle zayıf ya da hiç olmayan akran değerlendirmesi, yanıltıcı iddialar ve düşük makale işlem ücretleri ile karakterizedir; bu da bilim ve araştırmanın güvenilirliğini tehlikeye atar ve akademik değerlendirmeyi çarpıtır. Bu yayınevleri, genellikle düşük ve orta gelirli ülkelerden genç akademisyenleri hedeflerler. Bu dergilerde yayın yapmış yazarlar, yalnızca prestij kaybı ile değil, aynı zamanda atama ve terfi sorunları ile karşı karşıya kalırlar. 2010 yılında bu dergilerin sayısı 1800 iken günümüzde 19000 gibi rakamlar telaffuz edilmektedir. Bu dramatik artış araştırma ve bilimsel bütünlüğü tehdit eder bir hal almıştır. Daha da önemlisi, yağmacı dergiler doğrulanmamış ve hatta yanlış sağlık bilgilerinin yayılmasını kolaylaştırabilir. Çözüm büyük ölçüde yazarların bu şüpheli dergilere olan talebini kırmaktan geçer. Kurumsal politikalar caydırıcı olmadıkça sorunun artarak devam edeceği açıktır.
Predatory journals and publishers are a widespread and global phenomenon that exploits open access models and academic incentives. They are often characterized by weak or nonexistent peer review, misleading claims, and low article processing fees, which jeopardizes the credibility of science and research and distorts academic assessment. These publishers often target young academics from low- and middle-income countries. Authors who publish in these journals face not only a loss of prestige but also problems with appointment and promotion. While the number of these journals was around 1800 in 2010, today figures of around 19,000 are being cited. Research and scientific integrity are at risk due to this dramatic increase. More importantly, predatory journals can facilitate the spread of unverified or even false health information. The solution largely lies in curbing authors' interest in these dubious journals. Unless institutional policies are established as deterrents, it is evident that the issue will only continue to escalate.
Referanslar
Tenopir C, King DW. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers. Washington, DC: SLA Publishing; 2000.
Internet sitesi: Pollock D and Staines H (2025). News and Views: Market Sizing Update 2025: Has OA recovered its mojo? https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-market-sizing-update-2025-has-oa-recovered-its-mojo (Erişim tarihi: 18.12.2025).
Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. JEADV. 2018;32(9):1441-49. https://doi: 10.1111/jdv.15039.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28. https://doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.
Ross-White A, Godfrey CM, Sears KA, Wilson R. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(1):57-61. https://doi: 10.5195/ jmla.2019.491.
Severin A, Low N. Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases. Int J Public Health. 2019;64(8):1123-24. https://doi: 10.1007/s00038-019-01284-3.
Verma A, Kumar J, Khandelwal N. Predatory Journals: "The Gray Market" of Academic Publishing. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2025;35(Suppl 1):114-115. https://doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1792037.
İnternet sitesi: Eysenbach, Gunther (2008). Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. https://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html / (Erişim tarihi: 22.12.2025).
Jeffrey Beall, “Bentham Open,” The Charleston Advisor. 2009; 11(1): 29–32. http://eprints.rclis.org/13538/.
Jeffrey Beall, “Predatory Open-Access Scholarly Publishers,” The Charleston Advisor. 2010;11(4): 10–17. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/ charleston/chadv/2010/00000011/00000004/art00005.
Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489:17.
Kendall G. Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:379-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1374.
Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342:60-65. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.2013.342.6154.342_60.
Sorokowski P, Kulczycki E, Sorokowska A, Pisanski K. Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature. 2017;543:481-83.
Shen C, Bjork BC. Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine. 2015;13:230. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 2017;15(1): 28. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.
Dadkhah M, Maliszewski T, Teixeira da Silva JA. Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016; 12: 353–362. https://doi: 10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x.
Koçak Z. Misleading metrics: predatory trade expands. Trakya Univ J Nat Sci. 2023;24(2): 1-3. https://doi: 10.23902/trkjnat.1368563.
İnternet sitesi: Linacre S (2025). When academia takes on journalism…and falls short. https://blog.cabells.com /2025/09/24/when-academia-takes-on-journalism-and-falls-short/ (Erişim tarihi: 18.12.2025).
Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? JASIST. 2015;66(7):1406–1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.23265.
Frandsen TF. Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics. 2017; 113: 1513–1528. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x.
Kurt S. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Learned Publishing 2018; 31: 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150.
Demir SB. Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics. 2018;12(4): 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008.
Cobey KD, Lalu MM., Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a preda- tory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res. 2018;7(1001). https://doi:1 0.12688/f1000research.15256.2.
Mills D, Inouye K. Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing 2021; 34: 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325
Gallent Torres C. Editorial misconduct: the case of online predatory journals. Heliyon. 2022;8(3):e08999. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08999.
Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín JM; Urbano C. Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list”. El profesional de la información. 2016;25(5):730-737. http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2016/sep/03_esp.pdf.
Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F . Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2017; 98:1051–1056. https:// doi.org/10.1016/ j.apmr.2017.01.002.
Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience. 2017; 353:166–173. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.014.
Demir SB. Scholarly databases under scrutiny. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2020; 52(1) 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0961000 618784159.
Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. CMAJ. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ. 2018;190:E1042-5. https://doi: 10.1503/cmaj. 180154.
Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A, Mitchell D. Improvement of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: a data analysis. JLIS.it 2017;8:1-21. https://DOI: 10.4403/jlis.it-12052.
İnternet sitesi: Laine C, Winker MA (2017). WAME policies: Identifying predatory or pseudo journals. https://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals (Erişim tarihi: 23.12.2025).
Strinzel M, Severin A, Milzow K, Egger M. ‘‘Blacklists’’ and ‘‘whitelists’’ to tackle predatory publishing: a cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. PeerJ Prepr. https://doi.org/ 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27532v1.
Internet sitesi: InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) report (2022). Combatting predatory academic journals and conferences. https://www.interacademies.org/sites/ default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 18.12.2025).
Koçak, Z. Predatory publishing and Turkey. Balkan Medical Journal, 2019;36(4), 199–201. https ://doi.org/10.4274/balka nmedj .galen os.2019.2019.4.001.
Demir SB. Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics. 2018;116(3), 2053–2068. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1119 2-018-2833-4.
İnternet sitesi. Tonta Y (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye Adresli Uluslararası Bilimsel Yayınları Teşvik (UBYT) Programının değerlendirilmesi. http://ulakbim.tubit ak.gov.tr/sites /images/Ulakbim/tonta ubyt.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2025).
Akça S, Akbulut M. Türkiye’deki Yağmacı Dergiler: Beall Listesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Bilgi Dünyası. 2018;19(2): 255-274. https://doi.org/ 10.15612/BD. 2018.695.
Kocak Z. The Recent Decisions of the Turkish Council of Higher Education on Predatory Journals. Balkan Med J. 2022;39:81-2. https ://doi.org/10.4274/bal kanmedj .galen os.2019.2019.4.001.
Laine C, Babski D, Bachelet VC, Bärnighausen TW, Baethge C, Bibbins-Domingo K, Frizelle F, Gollogy L, Kleinert S, Loder E, Monteiro J, Rubin EJ, Sahni P, Wee CC, Yoo JH, Zakhama L. Predatory Journals: What Can We Do to Protect Their Prey? J Korean Med Sci. 2025;40(2):e77. https:// doi: 10.3346/jkms. 2025.40.e77.
