Who published in Chinese predatory journals? A study on the authorship of blacklist journals

This poster reported a study which examined 93,653 authorship records of 67 predatory journals listed in a well-known blacklist in China. By collecting and analyzing each author's full name and affiliated institution information, their organization distribution were studied. Then the authorship dataset was compared and matched up with the records in the biggest full-text academic literature database China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify each authors' publishing productivity (number of publications) and influence (number of downloads). The results showed that those who publish in predatory journals are young and inexperienced researchers from teaching-intensive universities all over the country, and most of them are from eastern coastal and developed areas of mainland China. The study also showed that some productive and influential researchers had the experience of publishing in predatory journals

Researcher’s Choice or Just a Necessity? The Consequences of Publishing in a Predatory Journal

The research community has been continuously investigating the issue of predatory journals. With the rapid development of technology and the world, online publishing has also accelerated, making it crucial to publish and disseminate scientific results as quickly as possible due to the “publish-or-perish” phenomenon. The number of open-access, online-only journals is increasing each year. Predatory publishers and journals have taken advantage of this trend by engaging in profit-driven, unethical practices. This article discusses how the predator phenomenon affects those involved in scientific communication. The research aims to address the following questions: What are the detrimental impacts of predatory journals on individuals involved in scientific communication? What causes researchers to publish in predatory journals? What is the relationship between publication pressure and publishing in predator journals

On the peer review reports: It's not the size that matters ... really?

Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic of peer review over the past twenty years, given its primordial role in a context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals. Although the topic is addressed under different prisms, few studies have empirically analyzed to what extent it can affect the quality of publications. Here we study the link between the length of reviewers' reports and the citations received by publications. To do this, we used data from the Publons database (58,093 peer review reports). We have adjusted this sample to match the WoS database structure. Our regression results show that peer review positively affects the quality of publications. In other words, the more indepth (longer) the referees' reports are, the greater the publication improvements will be, resulting in an increase in citations received. This result is important from both the point of view of reviewers and that of journal's chiefseditors. Even if it is not a remunerated activity, it is important that it be more valued at least within the framework of research evaluation exercises, given its positive impact on science.Comment: 19th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Jul 2023, Bloomington (Indiana), United State

Health and Medical Researcher Publishing Patterns and How Libraries Support Them

Changing business models in scholarly publishing means that researchers have increased choices as to where to submit their articles. Choices are made on the basis of perceived quality of the journal, the speed of publishing, and how close a match there is between the journal scope and the article topic. Additionally, there is an increasing concern as to whether the journals are predatory. This paper reports on a study which sought to understand how health researchers go about selecting where to publish and the support that they receive in this regard from librarians and related staff. The research confirms that knowledge of a specific journal is still the predominant factor for researchers and that they prefer to rely on their own judgment. Librarians are providing the tools such as databases and whitelists by which better choices can be made whilst exploring new roles in advising and training researchers. Predatory journals are being selected by some, chiefly as a consequence of a lack of awareness amongst researchers and the need for some to publish swiftly and at low cost

Medical articles in questionable journals are less impactful than those in non-questionable journals but still extensively cited

A key feature of questionable journals is a lack of adequate peer review of their articles. Content of thus unknown quality may be utilised by unsuspecting practitioners or incorporated into peer-reviewed research, becoming legitimised. It is therefore necessary to examine the citation patterns of articles in questionable journals to understand the impact and reach of research in questionable journals. Similar research has tended to focus on authors from low- and middle-income countries. As such, this study investigates the profile and impact of research in questionable journals by authors in Germany. Questionable journals were identified by matching journals with articles by authors at German institutions from Dimensions to Cabell's Predatory Reports. Metadata for these articles and a comparative sample of articles in non-questionable journals were extracted from Dimensions and the 3 year citations, self-citations, uncited rate, profile of co-authoring and citing countries, and institution type of authors were compared between groups. Nearly 600 articles in 88 questionable journals were published by German authors in 2010-2020. Three-quarters were in the medical and health sciences. Medical articles in questionable journals received significantly fewer citations than similar articles in non-questionable journals. However, articles in questionable journals were still extensively cited in 1,736 primarily non-questionable journals. Self-citations accounted for only 12% of these citations. Authors from non-university medical facilities were over-represented in articles in questionable journals. System-level changes are necessary to eliminate questionable journals and shift high-quality research into reputable venues

Saalistajien jäljillä

Vertaisarvioinnista sekä normaaleista tieteellisistä käytänteistä piittaamaton saalistajajulkaiseminen puhuttaa tiedeyhteisössä. Vaakalaudalla on paitsi saalistajalehdissä julkaisevan tutkijan oma maine, myös tieteellistä tutkimusta kohtaan tunnetun yleisen luottamuksen rapautuminen. Mistä nopeasti kasvaneessa, avoimen julkaisemisen mainetta tahranneessa ilmiöissä oikein on kysymys? Kuka saalistajalehtiin kirjoittaa? Ja miten erottaa luotettavat julkaisukanavat käärmeöljyn kauppiaista

Disturbance of greedy publishing to academia

Questionable publications have been accused of "greedy" practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, e.g., journals and publishers, and prosumers, e.g., authors. The analysis reveals that questionable publications embellished their citation scores by attributing publisher-level self-citations to their journals while also controlling the journal-level self-citations to circumvent the evaluation of journal-indexing services. This approach makes it difficult to detect malpractice by conventional journal-level metrics. We propose journal-publisher-hybrid metric that help detect malpractice. We also demonstrate that the questionable publications had a weaker disruptiveness and influence than their counterparts. This indicates the negative effect of suspicious publishers in the academia. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy making against questionable publications.Comment: 16 pages of main text including 4 figures + 32 pages of supplementary information including 30 supplementary figure

Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review

This is the final version. Available from BMC via the DOI in this record. Data availability: All data pertaining to this study is presented within the manuscript.Background: Academic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to ‘predatory publishers’– groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base. Methods: A rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified. Results: After searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes– understanding, and utilisation– of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services. Conclusion: There remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory publishers

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background