An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Moradzadeh, Mina; Adjei, Kwabena Osei Kuffour; Owusu-Ansah, Christopher M.; Balehegn, Mulubrhan; Faúndez, Eduardo I.; Janodia, Manthan D; Al-Khatib, Aceil

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, this study aims to evaluate and compare the main features of PPJs in language and linguistics with the mainstream legitimate journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), a highly respected database of scientific publishing. Like Teixeira da Silva et al (2022), we believe that providing ‘whitelists’ or ‘blacklists’ is not enough for informing and preventing researchers from publishing in predatory journals. The findings of this study can provide researchers with some pointers for determining the credibility of journals, language and linguistics journals in particular, and help inexperienced researchers avoid falling prey to predatory journals or committing unethical behaviours due to unawareness (Babaii & Nejadghanbar, 2017, Henning et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Nejadghanbar

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs.These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Nejadghanbar

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, some authors tend to avoid citing articles published by certain open access publishers (e.g., Multidisciplinary digital publisher institute (MDPI)), which once indexed in Beall's blacklists (Oviedo‐García, 2021, p. 405). However, this perception is based on a lack of understanding, or misinterpretation of the Beall blacklists of probable predatory publishers (Teixeira da Silva et al, 2022). One other possible reason for this journal's slow citation rates is that there is a large number of new articles that have zero citations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional development for STEM educators: A bibliometric analysis of the recent progress

Ahmed

Zhang

et al. 2023

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STEM teacher professional development (STEM‐TPD) has become a hot topic of educational research. To evaluate the main characteristics, status and trends of this educational field and to provide new insights for future studies, this review applies a bibliometric analysis of relevant publications. The Web of Science (WoS) core collection database was used as the source of bibliographic data for the period 2011–2021; specifically, 776 articles published in 232 journals were selected for this review. The bibliometric analysis was then carried out using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer to explore trends and patterns in the STEM‐TDP literature. It is essential to note that the analysis does not account for the quality of the selected studies. However, it presents the results using various perspectives such as citation, co‐citation, spatial and lexical networks based on frequencies, network analysis and descriptive patterns. The findings show that the number of relevant publications has grown significantly in recent years, in particular from 2015 to 2021. The findings, based on citation metrics, highlight the most influential authors, institutions and journals in the area. Authors from different countries have contributed to this research area, but there is a low volume of international collaboration among them. The analysis also reveals the dynamic changes in trends, keywords and themes in this research area. The review concludes with some recommendations for future research, and the suggested implications may also benefit other stakeholders in STEM education.

show abstract

“…Previous studies claimed that potentially predatory journal titles are also indexed in Scopus (Marina & Sterligov, 2021). However, as argued by Krawczyk and Kulczycki (2021), the term ‘predatory journal’ is quite controversial and in practice it is difficult to establish unambiguous formal criteria for identifying illegitimate scientific titles (Teixeira da Silva et al, 2022; Yamada & Teixeira da Silva, 2022). This author is of the opinion that there is a distinct difference between predatory and Scopus‐delisted journal titles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

Nazarovets

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Ukraine, Scopus data are used to evaluate academics. Existing shortcomings in the Ukrainian evaluation system allow them to publish in titles that have been delisted from Scopus, and continue to use those papers as credible research output for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to analyse the publishing activity of Ukrainian institutions in Scopus-delisted titles (as of September 2021) in different fields between 2011 and 2020 and to attempt to appreciate how common this practice is among Ukrainian authors. Scopus was sourced to collect bibliographic and citations-related data, while SciVal was used to analyse these data. The findings suggest that for 17 Ukrainian institutions, papers from titles that have been delisted from Scopus still play an important part of the publication achievement of their employees. In particular, in the field of economics, econometrics and finance, 46.92% of Ukrainian papers were published in a title that was excluded from Scopus. Moreover, the analysis indicated that in two Ukrainian institutions, the level of citation of such papers significantly exceeds the average number of citations to Scopus-indexed papers in the same year and in the same field. Given that bibliometric indicators are also used for research assessment in other Eastern European countries, the results of this paper are applicable to a wider geographic context.

show abstract

An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’

Cited by 22 publications

References 100 publications

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Professional development for STEM educators: A bibliometric analysis of the recent progress

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About