Jump to content

Talk:Journal hijacking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open access?

[edit]

I clicked on the first three entries in Beall's list of hijacked journals [1] (Afinidad, Baltica, Bothalia) and none of them claim to be open access; is Category:Open access (publishing) a defining feature of the present article? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • AS far as I know, all imposter journals are OA, otherwise they wouldn't be able to charge authors, which would defeat their purpose. (Also, how would they ever be able to sell print subscriptions?) In contrast, the victims can be anything, OA, online only print only, whatever. As long as the victim has some reputation that the imposters can profit from. In all, I think this is yet another unforeseen and undesirable accompanying phenomenon of OA, so I think the cat is justified. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be darned! You're completely right. How on Earth do those scammers convince authors to pay up? You publish something with them and, because I cannot imagine anybody actually subscribing to the fake journal (but perhaps I'm too naive here, too), nobody will ever see you article... Anyway, you're correct then that OA is not defining and the cat should go. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about each hijacked journal?

[edit]

Apparently WP already has articles about a handful of hijacked journals -- more would be better; noticing the existing ones, too. Also please be on the watchout for official external links! Fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they meet WP:NJournals (or WP:GNG), then we can write an article about them, of course. But just being on a list of hijacked journals somewhere really is not enough. I understand that some editors want to warn people about these hijacked journals, but that is not what an encyclopedia is for. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • bad reverts

    [edit]

    I carefully read Butlers article and he does not use the word "hijacked" but uses the other term "sham". Jalalian refers to the bad journal website as the "hijacked" source. Neither refers to the authentic journal as "hijacked". The reverts pervert the actual sources. Collect (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A note on basic English. wikt:Hijacking is something you do to a someone or something that exists. Being wikt:hijacked means that someone legitimate has been usurped by someone illegitimate. Those that do the hijacking are wikt:hijackers. Those being victim of hijacked are the hijacked.
    A scammed person is not the perpetrator of a scam, the perpetrators of a scam are scammers. A scammed person is the victim of a scam.
    Now replace person with journal, and scam/scammed/scamming/scammers hijack/hijacked/hijacking/hijackers.
    A hijacked journal is not the perpetrator of a hijacking, the perpetrators of a hijacking are hijackers. A hijacked journal is the victim of a hijacking.
    This is fully consistent with [2] and [3] and the rules of basic English everywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to @Randykitty, Fgnievinski, and WikiDan61: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow!!!! Now can you actually make the article reflect the language used in the sources? Jalalian also used the term in a way you seem not to understand. And I am actually reasonably good at English - and your rationale fails. Have a nice day. By the way, read WP:CANVASS in case you had forgotten it. Collect (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta discussion about canvassing
    What inappropriate canvassing has happened here exactly? Pinging the two people who have participated on the talk page in a neutral manner? A notice at WT:JOURNALS? That's perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Um -- your WT:JOURNALS does not note that you are not using the words used in the sources. Collect (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you calm down for a second here? "There's a discussion about the terminology in use at Hijacked journal, and whether it refers to the perpetrator or the victim of the hijacking. Please participate." is a perfectly neutral notice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is whether we use the words as the sources use them or as we wish to define the words. I prefer to use the sources. Collect (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you want to accuse me of canvassing? What's this POV-pushing notice then? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    FFS read WP:CANVASS and note that my use of a proper noticeboard for a proper question is not canvassing. An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. WP:RSN is a relevant noticeboard for discussing use of reliable sources. There is no other noticeboard regarding use of reliable sources. It was the only noticeboard which is absolutely relevant concerning any possible misuse of reliable sources. As a result, questions about use of reliable sources on that noticeboard are not canvassing. Collect (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, there is no debate about the reliability of any source here, the debate is about the interpretation of these sources say, and what terminology the article should use. Stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: As an outsider who saw the posting at RSN and WT:JOURNALS, may I ask: Does this diff show the two versions that are the subject of dispute? Thanks. I'm happy to look at the sources later today, but want to understand what two versions are being disputed. EdChem (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdChem: I think so. It's a bit hard to for me to follow Collect's thoughts at the moment, but they seem to be approaching this from the side that "Beall's list" calls things hijacked journals (perpetrators) / authentic journals (victims), whereas I'm approaching it from the perspective of what the grammar of hijacked journal means. This is also supported by "Beall's list" if you read the text (the full term for perpretators is hijacked version of the journal).
    My main concern, personally, is that if for some reason "hijacked journal" is the most common term in sources for perpetrators rather than victims, then it would be a very, very confusing term, giving the normal interpretation of what the word hijacked means (the sources tend to be fairly lax/informal about this and use a variety of closely related terms "the hijackers" vs "journals which have been hijacked" etc, muddying the picture). If that's the case (and I'm not saying it is), then we should likely use a different / altogether unambiguous term. But that would require deciding if this article should primarily focus on the journals being usurped, or the journals doing the usurping. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Substantially - yes. Please examine the headings on the two columns of Beall's list to see the problem (the "bad" column is labelled "Hijacked" and the "good" column is labelled "authentic") - that the terms are inverted in this article. Note that Butler does not even use the term, and obviously cannot be a source for the term. Also note Jalalian's abstract and actual writings, where he indicates the "hijack" is a fake - so calling an authentic source should not result in the authentic source being tarred with a nugatory term, as Jalalian pretty clearly notes. . I like words to be how the reliable sources use the words and not be any Wikipedia editor's "interpretation" of the sources. Thank you. That an editor WP:KNOWs what the "meaning" of a term is, we have to use the meaning used by the sources. Collect (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you to both Headbomb and Collect for your replies and for stopping the conflict. I have had a look at some sources and searched for myself, and these are my impressions:
    1. Collect is correct, sources do tend to use the phrase "hijacked journal" to mean the fake.
    2. Headbomb is correct, this term is misleading / ambiguous given the ordinary meaning of the phrase in English. Consequently, a new term is desirable.
    3. WP follows sources and avoids WP:OR so we'd need an authoritative source for a new term, and I have yet to see one. This also means that I have to agree with Collect that we should follow what the sources use, but also include sufficient explanation to address the confusion.
    4. There are many other sources that I have seen that can be used to expand the article, which is good because what I thought from the article is not at all accurate. These include:
    • doi:10.1093/asj/sjw026 – discussing predatory and hijacked journals, and references 5 (Jalalian, 2014) and 6 (Jalalian & Dadkah, 2015) therein
    • This blog piece illustrates how the fake version can be higher in Google results than the real journal. Its reference 3 is an update to Beall's list and may be appropriate for the EL section. Its reference 5, "How Are Predatory Publishers Preying on Uninformed Scholars? Don’t Be a Victim," links to here where there is a 50 min webinar also available on YouTube.
    • This piece writes about the same example as the above blog, noting the efforts of the journal to warn of the fake and explaining the prioritising of the fake on Google by the use of a .com address. It suggests that journals who take web presence seriously might better avoid such fakes being established. The same issues are also covered in archived versions of Beall's old site.
    • Description of a fake / hijacked HFSP Journal when the real one ended in 2010. Perhaps WP should be adding to journal articles where RS point to the existence of a hijacked or fake version?
    • doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.04.002 – 2016 paper titled "Characteristics of Hijacked Journals and Predatory Publishers: Our Observations in the Academic World," that discusses the first case being in 2011 (supported by Jalalian & Dadkah, 2015)
    • From the New York Times – For scientists, an exploding world of pseudo-academia
    • A 2014 review in Geographica Pannonica 18(3), pp. 69-81
    • doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 – 2017 paper on the "false academy"
    • Editorial on difficulties with publishing
    This isn't organise or examined for DUE weight, etc, but it is a starting point for expansion. EdChem (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed something here btw
    • [4] writes "... many are falling prey to "hijacked journals, which are journals that are legitimate and credible, but someone else has created fraudulent websites created under their name to turn a profit."
    • [5] "The old print journal Jökull, published in Iceland since 1951, has been hijacked." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently I was invited to engage in this discussion because of this edit that I made almost five years ago! If you'll notice, I did not introduce any new terminology in my edit; I merely cleaned up some grammar and citations and removed some highly opinionated content. I have no opinion on the present dispute. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiDan61:, well the current lead is from your edits, and that particular passage of "A hijacked journal is a legitimate academic journal [...] for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party [...]" was not there before them. It's fine not to have an opinion on this, but since those are your words, you could have offered some insight here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdChem:, how about rephrasing moving the article the concept of journal hijacking, rather than focusing on the parties? The prose could then be updated to have unambiguous language, e.g. something like
    Journal hijacking occurs when a legitimate journal's web presence, brand, or name is hijacked by a malicious third party...
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: At the time I encountered the article, it contained no lead whatsoever, but it did contain the text:
    From 2012, online hackers and website hijackers focused on a new job: Hijacking the print only journals by registering a domain name and creating a fake website under the title of hijacked journals.
    My edit merely clarified this statement and created a lead to give context to the article, thus:
    A hijacked journal is a legitimate academic journal that offers print-only access, for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party for the purpose of fraudulently offering academics the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee. The association of the faked website with a legitimate print journal makes this scam particularly effective.
    I will admit that the addition of the conclusion (that the scam is particularly effective) was my own, and I'm completely fine with that being removed. Further, as I only reworded the existing text, and have no knowledge of the underlying topic, I'm fine with any other edits anyone wishes to perform on this article. Again, I have no opinion on the topic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with EdChem's points above about Collect and Headbomb both making valid points. Yes, the sources apply "hijacked journal" to the perpetrator, not the victim, and yes, that is confusing. Headbomb's solution, to avoid the term "hijacked journal" completely sounds like a workable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd also need to update the associated category Category:Hijacked journals to something else. Category:Journals that were hijacked or Category:Victims of journal hijacking, or something similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. All articles included in there will most likely be about the legitimate journal, but will also mention the fake one. So whichever way you read "hijacked journal", those articles fall into that cat. I can live with that ambiguity... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect likely won't be able to, though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Category should be "sham journals" and the title of the article should be "sham journals" as that is Butler's unambiguous choice of words. Tarring authentic journals (Beall's usage) with the word "hijacked" is unfair both to the journals and to Wikipedia users. Sort of like saying "racists dislike George Gnarph" would thus place his BLP in the category of "racists". Collect (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sham journals refer to a lot more than fake journals that pose as legitimate journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to Butler and Jalalian then -- they are the main sources, after all. We do not do WP:OR per policy. Collect (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they are not the only sources. Sham journal is a very generic term for anything not legitimate, not just hijackers. Likewise the category is for the victims of hijacking, not the perpetrators. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Headbomb, I like the idea of renaming the article. I saw the suggestion of "journal hijacking," a term that points at the process rather than on either of the two journals that often have the same name, at the RSN discussion. I had two immediate thoughts: the first is that is neatly avoids the problem with the current name that it can be read with two meanings – and yes, you have some references to base the current formulation on, but I still think that the consensus of RS supports Collect's view; the second was, I hope this doesn't lead to a quick dive into an RM discussion. Unfortunately, my second thought has proved prescient. Having such a discussion started by someone other than you or Collect would have been preferable, just in the hope of keeping unhelpful comment and conflict to a minimum... that ship has, sadly, sailed. Further, stopping to think for a minute, whilst your proposal is a clear improvement, is it the best alternative? Talking about that for a day or two would have been wise, as would have been considering flow-on consequences such as renaming of categories, etc. Oh well... EdChem (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdChem: Well I was hardly the only one to think that this isn't a bad idea. I would not have made the RM if I was the only person thinking so, but so far everyone who weren't Collect that spoke about the idea thought it had some merit (so myself, Randykitty, Newslinger at RSN, and now you here). Again, doesn't mean it'll be people's favourite option, but an RM is a good way to find if that's the case or not. We can figure out what to name the category after we can settle on a title and on unambiguous terms for the usurpers and the usurped. I could very be that people prefer following a majority use even if it's ambiguous. It could be that completely different title is preferred. It could be that the RM results in no consensus. But journal hijacking seems to have a decent shot at achieving consensus and addressing the concerns of nearly everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of pointing out the obvious, idioms are a fact of natural language, and it's not rare for a word phrase to have a different (or even opposite) meaning than its constituent words or some of those words in other phrases. "Dust the furniture" (take dust off) vs "dust for fingerprints" (put dust on). "Cleavage" is the separation process in biology (and "cleavage furrow" is the space that occurs as the process occurs) vs the space between already-separated anatomical parts. I agree we should reduce ambiguoity wherever possible, but we can't decide that just because a word-phrase is made of words that have different meanings individually, that the phrase is unacceptable if it's the phrase that RS use. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks, though I have and continue to agree with Collect's assessment that the standard use in reliable sources is for "hijacked journal" to refer to the fake, Headbomb is also correct that there are examples where it is used to mean the genuine journal that has been hijacked. If RS were entirely consistent in usage, I'd find the titling defensible in WP terms... but as they aren't, I think we should avoid it where possible, make sure we are very clear about how we are using it, and recognising that the alternative interpretation is used in some sources. We need to be consistent and I think RS give us no choice but to define the term as describing the fake... but describing the process and establishing that there is a genuine and a fake before assigning labels would be a service to our readers, IMO. EdChem (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 2 April 2019

    [edit]
    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

    The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Hijacked journal → Journal hijacking – Mostly per the #bad reverts section above. There seems to be a reasonably broad consensus that hijacked journal is a problematic term, and that renaming the article to focus on the concept, rather than being named after either the victims or perpetrator, would be a good way forward that would let us avoid ambiguity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let others give their opinions - your desire to gainsay every single word I write as my opinion is not going to help reach a reasonable result whatsoever. It looks more like you are angry that I found the sources so clearly being misused and therefore blame me. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really no. But I will not let you peddle clear falsehoods. I too, have sources to back up what I say, and there is nothing in this move request that would "place the dysphemism aiming at the real journals". So yes, let's others chip in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PEDDLE CLEAR FALSEHOODS!!!! You do realize that you have abandoned the slightest pretense of collegiality on this site. So let others chip in and call me a GD liar as well -- if that is how you think WP:CONSENSUS is intended to function. I rather suggest you have not followed those precepts whatsoever at this point. Collect (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb and Collect – please PLEASE PLEASE STOP!!! I have been deeply unimpressed by the behaviour of the pair of you through this dispute. You have each posted things that you should feel ashamed about. You have each been acting in a way that I would find unacceptable in a 5 year old. You are both capable of being highly competent, respected, and valued Wikipedians. Whatever is the basis for the conflict between you (because I feel this topic is a pretext from some bigger issue), please, discuss it like adults and leave the rest of us out of it, or agree to avoid each other.
    Headbomb, you know full well that your declaration above is not acceptable on WP, even within our oddly flexible notions of civility. Please, strike it. I have commented before in my disappointment and the fact that it continues from page to page is growing increasingly annoying. This post to Randykitty, for example, contains yet more accusations and claims that seem designed on inflaming the situation. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve, but if it doesn't involve reaching your antipodal point the hard (though most direct) way, then stop.
    Collect, the post above might be politely worded but it is easy to read into... it brings to mind for me a child screaming about being right and poking his or her tongue out at another child. It is beneath you, as is your insistence that your RSN post was neutrally worded. I have said above, and I maintain, that the balance of RS support your reading and that policy demands that we respect and follow those sources. In that sense, you are right. However, as Randykitty has agreed, there is an ambiguity with the term "hijacked journal" and Headbomb is right that there is a problem here. You being right about the sources doesn't make you right about the best way for WP to cover this phenomenon, and I hope you agree that something that is clear and accurate for our readers is our goal.
    Unless the two of you are hoping for blocks, interaction bans, and a general loss of respect from other Wikipedians, please do something to try to reduce tensions. Go for a walk, have a nice meal, take deep breaths, look in the mirror and check if there's an adult looking back, admit (at least to yourself) that it takes two to fight, and come back and do something towards reducing tension. You aren't helping yourselves. You aren't helping Wikipedia and its readers. You aren't doing anything good for my blood pressure. Truly, if for no other reason, please relieve the Australian health system from the cost of repairing the damage when I read another unnecessary and provocative post and have to pick up the pieces from my shattered skull and call an ambulance. EdChem (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly not sure where this admonishment (or the previous one, which I'm only seeing now) is coming from? I've being going out of my way to keep calm and stick to the issues here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, on the grounds that it is a much better name than the current one and avoids the existing ambiguity. However, and as I indicated in the earlier thread, I think this RM may be premature because there are other alternatives possible (Collect has suggested some, for example) and RM's that start debating between multiple options can end up collapsing. I am open to alternatives to the "journal hijacking" title and opposed to retaining the title "hijacked journal." EdChem (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a better description of the topic (not focusing solely on either the legit journal or just the imposter, but rather both and the process or whole phenomenon) as well as resolving the concern about plain-language meaning of the separate words vs cited meaning of the compound expression. I can't think of a phrase involving "sham" or "fraudulent" that is inclusive of both sides, and I agree with User:Headbomb that "sham" also is a broader category of badness. @EdChem: the earlier discussions are a mess; now that there is an RM active, could you or Collect mention some other alternatives here? DMacks (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • DMacks, as Collect has noted, terms like "sham journals" and "fake journals" appear in the literature, but as you have noted, they can encompass much more than just this style of hijacking. Some references discuss these cases along with predatory journals, and though there are differences, these "hijacked journals" (in the literature sense) are a variant on the predatory journals model which does not appropriate an authentic journal's ISSN and IF's but still often steals a genuine journal's name. This article does not presently cover this, though. References that I posted above do refer to a "pseudo-academia" or "false academy", and I wonder if a topic like that might make for a good broad overview article with connections to this article, to predatory journals and predatory conferences, and perhaps to pseudoscience journals (like the Answers Research Journal published by Answers in Genesis). Of course, such an approach would need to reflect literature sources and I have not found enough to be certain that this approach is supportable under WP policy... at least, not yet. Sadly, I am confident that sources will continue to appear as these behaviours, manipulations, and deceptions continue. EdChem (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Journal hijacking eliminates the ambiguity of hijacked journal, which makes the proposed title better than the current title. Having the action as the title allows the article to use more precise terms for the predatory and authentic journals. I support any title that describes the topic with more clarity than hijacked journal. — Newslinger talk 05:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My opinion is based on the "Precision" criterion, which states a good article title "unambiguously identifies the article's subject". A title that may refer to either the predatory or the authentic journal is ambiguous. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Mostly per WP:NATURAL, as this phrase is the most likely to be searched and used as a wikilink, and WP:PRECISE as the alternative implies more of a "how-to" implied meaning, suggesting that the topic is largely about the process of hijacking a journal. Also seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME within Google Scholar results, with 100 results for "hijacked journal" and 44 results for "journal hijacking". -- Netoholic @ 06:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While the processes/techniques involved with journal hijacking can certainly be discussed, it wouldn't be the focus of the article anymore than the process/techniques involved with aircraft hijacking aren't its focus. It would cover the whole topic. Hijacked journal would still redirect here.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that might be true, but so far no one here has given a rationale which cites any part of WP:TITLES, so I can't support it. -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really sure what you're looking for from WP:TITLES exactly, but journal hijacking would satisfy all 5 aspects of WP:CRITERIA, maybe a bit lower on 'naturalness', but certainly higher on 'precision' given the ambiguity. There's also WP:NDESC and WP:PRECISION at play here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journal_hijacking&oldid=1207864468"