A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?

Koerber, Amy; Starkey, Jesse C.; Ardon‐Dryer, Karin; Cummins, R. Glenn; Eko, Lyombe; Kee, Kerk F.

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102236

Cited by 33 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adnan et al (2019) presents a methodology and analysis for the design of an automated detection system, however, such systems are yet to be designed and tested. Consequently, watch and safe lists have their limitations, however, they support scholarly authors to make ‘informed publishing decisions’ (Koerber et al, 2020, p. 7).…”

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The journals are assessed according to a set of criteria (Olijhoek et al, 2015) and is being used to identify non‐predatory journals (Gallo et al, 2022; Maurer et al, 2021). Numerous examples of safe lists are available (Koerber et al, 2020, p. 3).…”

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many individuals, associations, and companies have curated journal watch lists or journal safelists although a list of this nature always will be incomplete and out-of-date at the time of publication (Koerber et al, 2020). The rapidly evolving nature of these journals implies that it is difficult to maintain these lists (Manca et al, 2019), and there is growing concern with the approach of maintaining watchlists and safelists (Koerber et al, 2020). Matumba et al ( 2019) argue that both watchlists and safelists have their limitations and hope that automatic identification may be available in the future.…”

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

Frandsen

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars engage with so-called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs and the possibility of fast track faculty positions or promotion. It has been claimed that fast tracking promotion by using predatory publication outlets is an increasing problem. This study analyses the authors publishing in predatory journals with a focus on authors repeatedly publishing in predatory journals. In this study, a set of so-called predatory journals indexed in Scopus was used. The data included 243,396 authorships of articles and reviews published from 2004 to 2021 by 169,742 unique authors.This study finds that 55% of the authors publish in one of these journals only once, 34.5% publish 2-5 times in these journals, 6.3% publish in them 6-10 times, and 4.2% publish more than 10 times. Furthermore, this study finds that the mean and median number of articles and reviews is correlated with the number of articles and reviews in predatory journals. Finally, authors publishing in predatory journals do not confine themselves to these journals and also publish in validated journals as well.

show abstract

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

Frandsen

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We continued with the evaluation until the bulk of search results were no longer relevant. We also excluded books as well as articles in predatory journals (Eriksson & Helgesson, 2017;Koerber et al, 2020), but we included grey literature from academic institutions and think-tanks. We complemented the results through ad hoc searches and snowballing (Badampudi et al, 2015).…”

Section: Food Security and Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

The sustainability of “local” food: a review for policy-makers

Stein

Santini

2021

Rev Agric Food Environ Stud

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the political discussion, the promotion of local food systems and short supply chains is sometimes presented as a means to increase the resilience of the food system, e.g. in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is also suggested as a means to improve the environmental footprint of the food system. Differentiating between local food systems and short supply chains, a review of the literature on the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability is carried out. "Local food" cannot simply be equated with "sustainable food"; in most cases, it neither can ensure food security nor does it necessarily have a lower carbon footprint. For the environmental sustainability of food systems, many more factors matter than just transportation, not least consumers' dietary choices. In terms of social sustainability, local food systems are not necessarily more resilient, but they can contribute to rural development and a sense of community. In terms of economic sustainability, selling via short supply chains into local markets can benefit certain farmers, while for other producers it can be more profitable to supply international markets.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, ABDC JQL criteria are free to access (ABDC, 2018 ). Koerber et al ( 2020 ) referred to whitelists and blacklists as watchlists and safelists, respectively. Our tool is not a whitelist or a blacklist.…”

Section: Strengths Of This Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as “predatory”. Simply referring to them as “potentially predatory” or “borderline predatory” also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

show abstract

A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

The sustainability of “local” food: a review for policy-makers

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About