Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.
Communication ; Disclosure/*ethics ; *Ethics, Research ; Fraud/*ethics ; Information Dissemination/*ethics ; Medical Writing ; Periodicals as Topic/ethics ; Publishing/*ethics ; Science/*ethics

This article explains the relationship between open-access publications and pseudo-journals, and explores their characteristics including predatory journals and journal hijackers. Pseudo-journals and pseudo-conferences cause the disruption of academic development by spreading low quality information as well as the violation of research ethics by abusing research funds. Finally, preventive measures are described from the perspective of journal authors/researchers, institutions/funding organizations, and journal editors.
Ethics, Research ; Financial Management ; Fraud ; Open Access Publishing ; Periodicals as Topic

PURPOSE: Recently a controversy has arisen about so-called “ghost surgery” practices, and people have voiced their opinions for legal sanction against such practices, which clearly undermine the foundation of medical ethics. However, there has been a lack of legal basis for punishing those actions. The present study aims to examine which pre-existing legal provisions could be applied to regulate ghost surgery. METHODS: The Korean Medical Service Act has a provision relating to informed consent to inhibit ghost surgery but does not include penalty provisions prohibiting ghost surgery itself. Also, the Korean Supreme Court precedents on this issue have not been settled as of yet. Therefore, this study referred to U.S precedents, law books, and related papers. RESULTS: With respect to ghost surgery, we expect the charges of bodily harm, assault and battery, and fraud could be applied under Korean law, in addition to charges regarding the violation of medical law, such as the omission of entries or false entries in medical records. A patient provides consent to bodily harm prior to surgery, and only the person who is entrusted with such permission can become the operating surgeon in the operating room. CONCLUSION: In other words, even if other medical professionals are present in the operating room, the operating surgeon who received consent must take overall responsibility for the whole process of the surgery. A surgeon should bear in mind that a violation of such duty can constitute a criminal offense.
Criminals ; Ethics, Medical ; Fraud ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Jurisprudence ; Korea* ; Medical Records ; Operating Rooms ; Punishment* ; Surgical Procedures, Operative