Étiquette : predatory publishing

Catégories
EN

Studying ‘predatory publishing’ in the context of research evaluation: conceptual and methodological challenges

Authors :  Dimity Stephen, Meta Cramer, Emanuel Kulczycki, Martin Reinhart, Federico Vasen, Jakub Krzeski, Rita Fari, Moumita Koley, Marilena Drymioti

Over the past years, the phenomenon of ‘predatory publishing’ has undergone fundamental changes raising pressing methodological and conceptual challenges for its study, particularly in the context of research evaluation.

The complex constellation of commercial, evaluative, and scholarly actors and logics now involved necessitates an interdisciplinary, geographically-diverse, and collaborative approach to studying scholarly – and especially ‘predatory’ – publishing. In this piece, we outline four key conceptual and methodological dimensions that, we argue, scholars must account for when studying this phenomenon.

Firstly, the constantly changing dynamics of who and what constitutes predatory publishers and practices. Secondly, disentangling the complex relationships between evaluation and practice, accounting methodologically for the myriad factors that influence these ties, and recognising that scholarly practices are not a unidirectional effect of evaluations.

Thirdly, scholars must recognise that evaluation regimes are embedded in distinct political economies of academia and that the notion of predatoriness is not universal but culturally, methodologically, and institutionally contingent.

Finally, the common practice of using quantitative analyses alone to study questionable publishing practices risks reproducing existing biases and overlooking structural dynamics, and thus mixed approaches incorporating qualitative methods are necessary to ensure a nuanced understanding of the topic.

We argue that scholars’ approach to ‘predatory publishing’ crucially shapes what empirical dynamics are observed, and consequently call for scholars to take a holistic approach to studying this phenomenon.

URL : Studying ‘predatory publishing’ in the context of research evaluation: conceptual and methodological challenges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag025

Catégories
FR

Saisir l’objet mouvant de la prédation dans la communication scientifique

Auteur : Innocent Azilan

Cet article examine la prédation dans la communication scientifique comme un phénomène complexe et mouvant qui dépasse la simple dichotomie entre revues « légitime » et « prédatrices ». Je propose une analyse nuancée qui identifie trois formes principales de prédation : par opportunisme (éditeurs frauduleux exploitant le modèle des frais de publication), par immaturité (revues périphériques aux capacités éditoriales limitées), et par avidité (dérives des grands éditeurs commerciaux sous pression de croissance). Je montre que la prédation n’est pas cantonnée aux marges du système scientifique mais touche également des acteurs établis.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05344926v1

Catégories
EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

Catégories
EN

The Predatory Paradox : Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing

Authors : Amy Koerber, Jesse C. Starkey, Karin Ardon-Dryer, R. Glenn Cummins, Lyombe Eko, Kerk F. Kee

In today’s ‘publish or perish’ academic setting, the institutional prizing of quantity over quality has given rise to and perpetuated the dilemma of predatory publishing. Upon a close examination, however, the definition of ‘predatory’ itself becomes slippery, evading neat boxes or lists which might seek to easily define and guard against it.

This volume serves to foreground a nuanced representation of this multifaceted issue. In such a rapidly evolving landscape, this book becomes a field guide to its historical, political, and economic aspects, presenting thoughtful interviews, legal analysis and original research. Case studies from both European-American and non-European-American stakeholders emphasize the worldwide nature of the challenge faced by researchers of all levels.

This coauthored book is structured into both textual and supplemental materials. Key takeaways, discussion questions, and complete classroom activities accompanying each chapter provide opportunities for engagement and real-world applications of these concepts.

Crucially relevant to early career researchers and the senior faculty, library scholars, and administrators who mentor and support them, ‘The Predatory Paradox: Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing’ offers practical recommendations for navigating the complex and often contradictory advice currently available. University instructors and teaching faculty will also find the reading essential in order to properly prepare both graduate and undergraduate students for the potential pitfalls endemic to scholarly publishing.

URL : The Predatory Paradox : Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0364

Catégories
EN

Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill

Author : Anna Abalkina

This study attempts to detect papers originating from the Russia-based paper mill ‘International Publisher’ LLC. A total of 1,063 offers to purchase co-authorship on a fraudulent papers published from 2019 to mid-2022 on the 123mi.ru website were analysed.

This study identifies at least 451 papers that are potentially linked to the paper mill, including one preprint, a duplication paper and 16 republications of papers erroneously published in hijacked journals.

Evidence of suspicious provenance from the paper mill is provided: matches in title, number of co-authorship slots, year of publication, country of the journal, country of a co-authors and similarities of abstracts. These problematic papers are co-authored by scholars from at least 39 countries and are submitted to both predatory and reputable journals.

This study also demonstrates collaboration anomalies in questionable papers and examines indicators of the Russia-based paper mill. The value of co-authorship slots offered by ‘International Publisher’ LLC from 2019 to 2021 is estimated at $6.5 million. Since this study only analysed a single paper mill, it is likely that the number of papers with forged authorship is much higher.

URL : Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574

Catégories
EN

How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing?

Author : Jairo Buitrago Ciro

The topic of predatory publishing and ways to combat it is garnering considerable attention in many parts of the developed world, where academic librarians are emerging as leaders in this regard. However, less is known about how this phenomenon is playing out in developing regions, including Spanish-speaking Latin America.

This study presents the results of a survey of 104 academic librarians in this region, along with follow-up interviews with seven respondents. The findings reveal that scholarly publishing literacy in general, and predatory publishing in particular, currently has low visibility in this part of the world, although there is growing recognition of and increasing concern about the issue.

Although there is some debate about whether scholarly publishing literacy should be the sole responsibility of the library, many participants agree that the library has a role to play. Moreover, while most of the librarians who participated perceive that they have a solid knowledge of open access, they are less confident in their understanding of predatory practices and are seeking to increase their skills and knowledge in this regard to better support researchers at their institutions.

To address this shortcoming, academic librarians in the region have expressed an interest in receiving training and in participating in international collaborations with other libraries that have already developed resources or programming in this area.

URL : How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211016533

Catégories
EN

Academia should stop using beall’s lists and review their use in previous studies

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Graham Kendall

Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided).

The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017.

Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon.

This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation.

Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.

URL : Academia should stop using beall’s lists and review their use in previous studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04