Archives des mots-clés : predatory publishing

Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the ‘predatory publishing’ discourse

Posté le par

Authors : Kelsey Inouye, David Mills

This analysis of 229 editorials and opinion pieces published in science and medical journals explores the affective discourses used to characterise so‐called predatory publishing. Most (84%, n = 193) deploy one or more of three related categories of metaphorical and figurative language (fear, fakery and exploitation) to strengthen their rhetorical case.

This paper examines the deployment, co‐occurrence and amplification of this language across the science publishing system, focusing particularly on the role of major science journals in adopting and normalising this emotive discourse.

The analysis shows how few editorials offer alternative perspectives on these developments (n = 9), and their relative invisibility in scholarly debates.

URL : Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the ‘predatory publishing’ discourse

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1377

Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access

Posté le par

Author : Monica Berger

The promise of open access for the global South has not been fully met. Publishing is dominated by Northern publishers, which disadvantages Southern authors through platform capitalism and open access models requiring article processing charges to publish.

This article argues that through the employment of bibliodiversity — a sustainable, anticolonial ethos and practice developed in Latin America — the South can reclaim and decolonize open access and nurture scholarly communities.

Self‐determination and locality are at the core of bibliodiversity which rejects the domination of international, English‐language journal publishing. As articulated by the Jussieu Call, wide‐ranging, scholarly‐community‐based, non‐profit and sustainable models for open access are integral to bibliodiversity, as is reform of research evaluation systems.

Predatory publishing exploits open access and perpetuates the marginalization of Southern scholars. Predatory journals are often also conflated with legitimate Southern journals. The article concludes with a discussion of Southern open access initiatives, highlighting large‐scale infrastructure in Latin America and library‐based publishing in Africa, which express the true spirit of open access as a commons for knowledge as a public good.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12634

Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University

Posté le par

Author: Susan Vandagriff

INTRODUCTION

This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts.

METHODOLOGY

The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019.

The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing.

RESULTS

Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output.

OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications.

DISCUSSION

More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models.

Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models.

CONCLUSION

Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing.

However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.

URL : Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2392

How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Franciszek Krawczyk, Emanuel Kulczycki

The aim of this paper is to investigate how predatory journals are characterized by authors who write about such journals. We emphasize the ways in which predatory journals have been conflated with—or distinguished from—open access journals.

We created a list of relevant publications on predatory publishing using four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic.

We included 280 English-language publications in the review according to their contributions to the discussions on predatory publishing. Then, we coded and qualitatively analyzed these publications.

The findings show the profound influence of Jeffrey Beall, who composed and maintained himself lists of predatory publishers and journals, on the whole discussion on predatory publishing.

The major themes by which Beall has characterized predatory journals are widely present in non-Beall publications. Moreover, 122 papers we reviewed combined predatory publishing with open access using similar strategies as Beall.

The overgeneralization of the flaws of some open access journals to the entire open access movement has led to unjustified prejudices among the academic community toward open access.

This is the first large-scale study that systematically examines how predatory publishing is defined in the literature.

URL : How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271

La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Posté le par

Autueurs/Authors : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Sarah Rakotoary, Pascal Bador

L’article présente un état de l’art critique du phénomène des revues prédatrices qui touche le champ de la communication scientifique et en fait une de ses actualités les plus médiatisées. Il rend compte des débats en cours, des recherches menées et de leurs méthodologies.

L’article discute la définition de la revue prédatrice et propose une analyse du nouveau marché de listes de revues « légitimes » et « illégitimes ». Il identifie les principaux enjeux éthiques et scientifiques que les revues prédatrices font peser sur la publication en Libre Accès et rend compte des contextes qui conduisent des chercheurs (jeunes et seniors) à y publier.

En rattachant les revues prédatrices au champ de la communication scientifique, l’article en pointe les principales problématiques et les érige en objet de recherche. L’article conclut sur des pistes de recherches contribuant à l’analyse des mutations de la communication scientifique numérique.

URL : La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Original location : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02941731

Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences

Posté le par

Authors : David Mills, K. Inouye

This article systematically reviews recent empirical research on the factors shaping academics’ knowledge about, and motivations to publish work in, so‐called ‘predatory’ journals. Growing scholarly evidence suggests that the concept of ‘predatory’ publishing’ – used to describe deceptive journals exploiting vulnerable researchers – is inadequate for understanding the complex range of institutional and contextual factors that shape the publication decisions of individual academics.

This review identifies relevant empirical studies on academics who have published in ‘predatory’ journals, and carries out a detailed comparison of 16 papers that meet the inclusion criteria. While most start from Beall’s framing of ‘predatory’ publishing, their empirical findings move the debate beyond normative assumptions about academic vulnerability.

They offer particular insights into the academic pressures on scholars at the periphery of a global research economy. This systematic review shows the value of a holistic approach to studying individual publishing decisions within specific institutional, economic and political contexts.

Rather than assume that scholars publishing in ‘questionable’ journals are naïve, gullible or lacking in understanding, fine‐grained empirical research provides a more nuanced conceptualization of the pressures and incentives shaping their decisions. The review suggests areas for further research, especially in emerging research systems in the global South.

URL : Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

Posté le par

Authors : Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Marc Domingo, Tiago Barros

Background

While the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively well-understood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals.

We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally?

Methods

We matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric.

For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour.

Results

We matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews).

The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively).

The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions.

Conclusion

The characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155