Scopus, a prominent scientific paper database managed by publishing giant Elsevier, has been flagged for listing 67 "hijacked" journals as of September. These legitimate publications have fallen prey to unscrupulous operators exploiting them for illicit profits, charging authors fees as high as $1000 per paper. Although a small fraction compared to Scopus' extensive index of over 26,000 active, peer-reviewed journals, the presence of such compromised journals raises concerns about the integrity of scholarly records.
The study, authored by Anna Abalkina from the Free University of Berlin and published in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, sheds light on the alarming trend. While some work in hijacked journals may be authentic, previous analyses reveal instances of plagiarism, fabrication, and publication without proper peer review.
Salim Moussa, a marketing professor at the University of Gafsa, emphasizes the potential health risks associated with nine of these hijacked journals being medical journals. Of the 67 identified, 41 were still operational as of September, indicating an ongoing issue.
In response to the study, Elsevier has initiated a comprehensive investigation into the affected journals, their homepage URLs, and indexed articles. Dan DiPietro-James, the global media relations director, affirms Elsevier's commitment to maintaining the integrity of Scopus. Thirteen journal homepage links have already been removed.
Abalkina's research reveals that the hijackers employed various methods, including renewing expiring internet addresses and manipulating Scopus to list misleading URLs. Elsevier claims to use technology, researcher feedback, and an expert advisory board to identify and eliminate suspicious titles.
The study questions the effectiveness of Scopus' measures, citing instances where illicit papers or home page URLs persisted despite evidence presented to Elsevier representatives. Abalkina underscores the need for a more robust approach, describing the current situation as a game of "whack-a-mole."
Isabelle Robert, chief editor of Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, shares her frustration after her journal was copied by hijackers. Despite notifying Scopus, corrections were not promptly made, leading to additional indexed papers from the imposter version. Observers suggest that authors can contribute to tackling this issue by consulting a list of hijacked journals compiled by Abalkina and Retraction Watch.
The call for coordinated action across the scholarly publishing ecosystem echoes the sentiment that unless proactive measures are taken, hijacked journals will continue to infiltrate commercial bibliographic databases.
