Scholarly Article Submitted and Accepted before Research is Completed

It appears that a scholarly paper was submitted and accepted before the research it reports on was actually completed. The article, published in December, 2013, is this:

Izetbegovic, Sebija. (2013). Occurrence of ABO and RhD incompatibility with Rh negative mothers. Materia Socio Medica 25(4), 255-258.

The article’s first page lists the dates it was received, accepted, and published.

Avicena PUblisher

Bench to bedside in no time.

The information in the upper-left-hand portion of the article’s first page indicates it was received by the publisher on June 11, 2013 and accepted on September 25, 2013. However, the paper itself indicates the research it is based on continued through October, 2013, a month after it was accepted.

In several instances, the article makes reference to research that continued through late October, 2013, a month after it was accepted.

Avicena Publisher

But the paper was accepted in September!

The journal is published by Sarajevo-based Avicena Publisher, a publisher that has been on my list of questionable publishers for some time.

The author, Sebija Izetbegovic, is affiliated with the General Hospital “Prim. Dr. Abdulah Nakas,” in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this is where she conducted the research.

She appears to have had a burst of scholarly publications come out around the same time. For example, she also published the article “Early Amniocentesis as a Method of Choice in Diagnosing Gynecological Diseases” in Acta Informatica Medica – another Avicena journal — also in December, 2013.

She also just co-authored this article with an ambiguous title:

Avicena 3

Correct.

This article is also published in an Avicena Publisher journal. And she had this quickly-accepted review article in an Iranian journal:

Avicena Publisher

A pretty quick qcceptance, even for a review article.

It’s likely that the author needed to publish a certain number of publications very quickly for purposes of tenure or promotion. The questionable publisher was happy to help in this.

The article processing charges for Avicena Publisher’s journals are not prominently stated on the publisher’s website. APCs should be stated clearly and prominently. They are buried in a PDF file that contains a form that authors must fill out to transfer copyright to the publisher, a requirement which is also non-standard for OA publishers. The APC is 250 euros.

A low price to pay for a promotion.

9 Responses to Scholarly Article Submitted and Accepted before Research is Completed

  1. behalbiotech says:

    this is new technology “Online Ahead of Research”

  2. RMS says:

    It might just be a typo, 2012 would make more sense.

    In my field there was an influential 2001 paper from a reputable journal that reported an erroneous pKa value of 3.6, instead of 6.3, and people to this day are reporting the wrong pKa citing that paper. They then wonder why they don’t get the desired precipitation that would have occurred had the pKa been indeed lower.

  3. Bill White says:

    As pointed above, this may be due to a typo. Also, further research could be continual to address other issues, even if an article was published to report findings about some aspect of topic.

    • Guido B says:

      It doesn’t look like it’s a typo… Both Table 1 and Figure 1 in the paper contain separate rows/bars for 2011, 2012 *and* 2013. Also, the note below Table 1 mentions again that data for 2013 were collected up to October 23rd. So it seems indeed that the data were updated after the paper was accepted.

      • leo says:

        Hypothetically, is it allowed for authors to correct errors after the paper was accepted? I mean there is the final step of sending back proofs (to the publisher), which technically is post-acceptance but pre-publication…

  4. Keyan Tomaselli says:

    This is an example of a dodgy journal trying to mimic the legitimate practice by some journals of reflecting date of receipt of a paper and then date of revision and then date of final acceptance. For me, this is a pointless exercise but one that is now being picked up by the scamsters

    Keyan Tomaselli

    • Andy says:

      And in my case this practice ruined my patent by “printing” the paper before it was stated in every document during submission procedures. Even though I like my papers to be accepted, I hate this practice :-(

  5. […] Meanwhile, time-traveling manuscripts seem to be a new thing. Here’s a case, courtesy of Jeffrey Beall, of a paper that was published before the work it was based on was even completed. […]

  6. […] Meanwhile, time-traveling manuscripts seem to be a new thing. Here’s a case, courtesy of Jeffrey Beall, of a paper that was published before the work it was based on was even completed. […]

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,916 other followers

%d bloggers like this: