Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals

Tang, Gengyan; Jia, Jingwen

doi:10.1080/08989621.2022.2112953

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the list of questionable journals is highly controversial. Different developers of such lists employ varying criteria, resulting in the inclusion of different scholarly journals whose accuracy has been questioned (Strinzel et al 2019;Tang and Jia, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These journals were considered potentially lacking academic rigor (Zhang et al 2022). Since then, more than 40 Chinese universities and institutions have promptly adopted the list as a basis for their research evaluations (Tang and Jia, 2022). Researchers who publish in the list of questionable journals are not eligible for material or honorary awards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The List of Questionable Journals: Is It Trustworthy?

Tang

Jiao

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The list of questionable journals serves to stratify academic journals, distinguishing between good and bad journals, thereby providing a basis for academic information filtering and research evaluation. The formulation of such lists has been a topic of controversy in the literature, with limited attention paid to whether the criteria used to stratify journals in these lists can be trusted. In this study, we take the example of the warning journal list published by the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and categorize the journals based on their warning levels and warning years. Then, we compare them to determine if there are differences in key academic indicators, thereby analyzing whether the journal lists effectively identify academic journals with quality risks. Our study found that the patterns of differences in key academic indicators among different journal stratums were not consistent, and the same inconsistency was observed during the mobility between stratums. Furthermore, citation metrics such as Journal Impact Factor and Journal Citation Indicator may not have been considered as criteria for stratifying journals in the warning journal list, but this lack of detailed explanation from the creators. This indicates that the list of questionable journals needs to be more scientifically evaluated, and there is a greater need for sharing detailed criteria and data. Our study also provides recommendations for institutions in the future when formulating lists of questionable journals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The List of Questionable Journals: Is It Trustworthy?

Tang

Jiao

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the release of EWJL 2020, more than 40 Chinese universities and institutions have promptly adopted the EWJL 2020 and EWJL 2021 as a basis for their research quality assurance (Tang and Jia, 2022). Researchers who publish papers in journals listed in EWJLs will not receive any material rewards or honors (Jiamusi University 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists

Tang,

Peng

2023

Accountability in Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lists of questionable journals are regarded a policy or tool to ensure research quality and integrity. However, due to their lack of clear criteria, they remain highly debated. Taking a typological perspective, we assess the reasonableness of the lists of questionable journals by examining how well it re ects the differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups when categorizing and labelling them, and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists released by the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an example, we grouped listed journals based on warning levels and years.Subsequently, we compared them in groups to determine if there are differences in key academic indicators among different warning categories, thereby evaluating the reasonableness of the warning journal list. Our research ndings suggest that Early Warning Journal Lists may have employed inconsistent criteria when assigning warning levels. Variations in the degrees of differences or the absence of differences were observed among groups across different key academic indicators. Additionally, citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator might not have been treated as grouping criteria in the Early Warning Journal Lists, yet this lack of detailed explanation from the creators is evident. This highlights the need for a more scienti c and meticulous assessment of the lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing detailed standards and data. Furthermore, our study offers recommendations for future formulation of lists of questionable journals by various institutions.

show abstract