A lot is said about questionable publishers or predatory publishers, but what are we talking about, have there been changes, and does the message need to be different depending upon the career stage of our audience?

It’s always fun to enjoy a little joke at your own expense in a professional development activity/resource.  Gary, who is an avid fantasy and sci-fi nut, came up with the idea for this image himself and liaised with our artist.  This is one of the growing gallery of cartoon images (without the watermark) and resources available from https://www.ahrecs.vip and https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs.

Research integrity discussion activity inspired by the CRISPR Babies case

Commentary by Prof. Colin Thomson AM on this 2016 paper about institutional conflicts of interest policies (or lack thereof) at US research institutions. This informative …

A comprehensive resource (including 44 short audios spoken by Prof. Mark Israel) about the Australian Code (2018).

A cartoon image that was our well wishes at the end of 2018 and could be used in your professional development activities.

A comic image about a serious breach of responsible conduct

Commentary on why questionable publishers might be a more accurate term than predatory publishers.

Regardless of whether you call them questionable publishers, pay-to-play publishers or vanity publishers, we need to talk about them in our research integrity professional development efforts.  While more entrenched in our thinking, the term predatory publishers no longer accurately reflects the dynamic of ‘shady’ research publishing.  This cheeky graphic can be a lighthearted intro to this important topic.

This fun research integrity image is perfect for use in your workshop and other material that talk about predatory publishers (though we prefer the term questionable publishers).