“…This step resulted in the identification of some papers that had studied the knowledge and perceptions related to predatory journals [ 3 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] ]. However, most previous studies used self-administered questionnaires and varied widely in terms of questionnaire type.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The knowledge construct included 18 questions related to predatory journals, each offering three response options: “yes”, “no”, and “don't know”. The items underlying this construct were generated utilizing various previous research studies [ 3 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree; if it was a negative statement, 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree). The items underlying this latent construct were generated utilizing various previously published related papers [ 14 , 18 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] , 56 ].…”
“…This step resulted in the identification of some papers that had studied the knowledge and perceptions related to predatory journals [ 3 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] ]. However, most previous studies used self-administered questionnaires and varied widely in terms of questionnaire type.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The knowledge construct included 18 questions related to predatory journals, each offering three response options: “yes”, “no”, and “don't know”. The items underlying this construct were generated utilizing various previous research studies [ 3 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree; if it was a negative statement, 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree). The items underlying this latent construct were generated utilizing various previously published related papers [ 14 , 18 , 23 , [51] , [52] , [53] , 56 ].…”
“…Grudniewicz et al (2019, p. 211) present a consensus definition:Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self‐interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.A number of recent studies show that knowledge as well as awareness of predatory journals tends to be low across disciplines and academic positions (AlRyalat et al, 2019; Atiso et al, 2019; Cohen et al, 2019; Kinde, 2021; Maurer et al, 2021; Richtig et al, 2019; Wang et al, 2021). On the other hand, other studies find that faculty are aware and recognize predatory journals as a problem (Owolabi et al, 2020; Swanberg et al, 2020). Studies of the prevalence and characteristics of authors publishing in predatory journals have shown that the authors tend to be inexperienced (Bagues et al, 2019; Xia et al, 2015), however experience alone does not explain the author profile as argued by Mertkan, Aliusta, and Suphi (2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…A number of recent studies show that knowledge as well as awareness of predatory journals tends to be low across disciplines and academic positions (AlRyalat et al, 2019;Atiso et al, 2019;Cohen et al, 2019;Kinde, 2021;Maurer et al, 2021;Richtig et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2021). On the other hand, other studies find that faculty are aware and recognize predatory journals as a problem (Owolabi et al, 2020;Swanberg et al, 2020). Studies of the prevalence and characteristics of authors publishing in predatory journals have shown that the authors tend to be inexperienced (Bagues et al, 2019;Xia et al, 2015), however experience alone does not explain the author profile as argued by .…”
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.
This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
