2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 100 publications
0
12
0
3
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%
“…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%
“…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%
“…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%