Module 5 - Final Assessment Question on Predatory Open Access Publishers

[JFormoso]

In the final assessment, Dr. D.I. Burín, a cognitive psychologist from the University of Buenos Aires, pointed out that the following question may be problematic:

Which of the following is a common red flag indicative of predatory open access publishers?

a. There is an urgency and request for an extremely quick turnaround.
b. The email is well-written with no grammatical errors.
c. The journal subject is specific.
d. The solicitation is accurate.

Option (b) could be biased against non-native English speakers and is less relevant today due to AI tools like ChatGPT. Additionally, options (c) and (d) are much shorter than the correct answer, making the question too easy.

She suggested the following options for a more balanced question:

a. They sends an email soliciting manuscripts and emphasize quick publication.
b. The journal has a long history and is from a well-known scientific society.
c. The editorial board consists mainly of Latin American scientists.
d. The journal is open access, free to read, and does not request publication fees.

Could we consider updating the question with this revised set of options?

[bressler95tops]

Thank you for your patience @JFormoso, we appreciate your input and we have formally dispositioned your feedback. We mostly kept things the same, but added some improvements and with regards to Latin American scientists, we felt that international scientists better addresses the audience of the course.

Changing answers to:

a. The email solicits manuscripts, emphasizing an urgent response for quick publication.
b. The journal has a long history and is from a well-known scientific society.
c. The editorial board consists of international scientists.
d. The journal is open access, free to read, and does not request publication fees.

[lauracion]

Thank you for incorporating this, @bressler95tops! I like the improvements and understand why "Latin American" is too restrictive. Nonetheless, "international" misses the point because, most often, "international" translates in the audience's head as "US, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia." I suggest changing "international scientists" to "Global South scientists" or "scientists based in low-to-middle-income countries."

[bressler95tops]

@lauracion since raccoon gang already got to our original change, we are opening a new issue #924 to address your concern with international scientists being too broad. Feel free to track this issue to see what we are thinking.