Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals

Oermann, Marilyn H.; Nicoll, Leslie H.; Carter‐Templeton, Heather; Woodward, Amanda; Kidayi, Paulo Lino; Neal, Lauren B.; Edie, Alison H.; Ashton, Kathleen S.; Chinn, Peggy L.; Amarasekara, Sathya

doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2019.05.001

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a prior study, the research team found 814 citations to articles published in predatory nursing journals in legitimate nursing journals (Oermann et al, 2019). For that study, we identified the predatory nursing journals that had published the most articles (there were seven journals).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies of predatory nursing journals reveal similar characteristics and concerns about the quality of these journals as found in the broader realm of predatory publications (Edie & Conklin, 2019; McCann & Polacsek, 2018; Oermann et al, 2016; Oermann et al, 2019; Oermann et al, 2017). Some predatory nursing journals published only a few volumes and then ceased publication without any archiving procedures in place.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Limited studies have examined the citations to articles in predatory journals (Frandsen, 2017; Nwagwu & Ojemeni, 2015; Ross‐White, Godfrey, Sears, & Wilson, 2019). In an earlier study, an analysis of seven predatory nursing journals found 814 citations to these articles in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals (Oermann et al, 2019). Although that study documented that authors are citing the predatory literature in legitimate nursing journals, thus transferring the information into other journals, the extent to which the predatory article was used in the legitimate journal article was not examined.…”

Section: Citation Analysis Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some predatory nursing journals published only a few volumes and then ceased publication without any archiving procedures in place. A recent study documented 127 predatory journals in nursing (Oermann et al, 2019); these nursing journals reflected the criteria of predatory journals identified earlier (e.g., lack of transparency in publishing practices, misleading information about indexing and impact factors, editors and editorial board members with limited responsibilities with the journal, lack of transparency with journal operations, lack of archiving, questionable peer review practices, and lack of adherence to editorial and publishing standards). The Directory of Nursing Journals, a vetted list of scholarly publications in nursing, lists 247 journals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major area of concern is the lack of or questionable peer review processes with predatory journals (Baker et al, 2018; Cobey et al, 2018; Cortegiani, Sanfilippo, et al, 2018; Memon, 2019; Oermann et al, 2016; Oermann et al, 2019; Richtig, Berger, Lange‐Asschenfeldt, Aberer, & Richtig, 2018). A scoping review of characteristics of predatory journals grouped them into six areas, one of which was having a poor or an incomplete peer review process on which to base decisions about articles to publish (Cobey et al, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature

Oermann

Nicoll²,

Ashton

et al. 2020

J of Nursing Scholarship

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study was undertaken to learn how predatory journal articles were cited in articles published in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals. The extent of citation and citation patterns were studied. Design A two‐phase approach was used. Methods In Phase 1, 204 articles published in legitimate nursing journals that cited a predatory publication were randomly selected for analysis from a list of 814 articles with predatory journal citations. In Phase 2, the four predatory journal articles that were cited most frequently were analyzed further to examine their citation patterns. Findings The majority (n = 148, 72.55%) of the articles that cited a predatory publication were research reports. Most commonly, the predatory article was only cited once (n = 117, 61.58%). Most (n = 158, 82.72%) of the predatory articles, though, were used substantively, that is, to provide a basis for the study or methods, describe the results, or explain the findings. The four articles in Phase 2 generated 38 citations in legitimate journals, published from 2011 to 2019, demonstrating persistence in citation. An evaluation of the quality of these articles was mixed. Conclusions The results of this study provide an understanding of the use and patterns of citations to predatory articles in legitimate nursing journals. Authors who choose predatory journals as the channel to disseminate their publications devalue the work that publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play in scholarly dissemination. Likewise, those who cite these works are also contributing to the problem of predatory publishing in nursing. Clinical Relevance Nurse authors should not publish their work in predatory journals and should avoid citing articles from these journals, which disseminates the content through the scholarly nursing literature.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Citation Analysis Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature

Oermann

Nicoll²,

Ashton

et al. 2020

J of Nursing Scholarship

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy

Siler

2020

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer-review systems and business models, commonly dubbed "predatory publishing." Empirical analysis of Cabellʼs Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, "gray" journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between-if not aligning-professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high-status journals with value and pricing power, while low-status OA journals face "predatory" incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit-seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower-status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate.

show abstract

Journals in Beall's list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers

Moed¹,

López-Illescas

Guerrero‐Bote

et al. 2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open access (OA) publishers compiled by Jeffrey Beall was examined to determine the effect of their inclusion upon authors, and a possible bias against OA journals. Manually collected data from the publication archives of a sample of 250 journals from Beall publishers reveals a strong tendency towards a decline in their article output during 2012-2020. A comparison of the subset of 506 Beall journals indexed in Scopus with a benchmark set of other OA journals in Scopus with similar characteristics shows that Beall journals reveal as a group a strong decline in citation impact over the years, and reached an impact level far below that of their benchmarks. The Beall list of publishers was found to be heterogeneous in terms of bibliometric indicators but to be clearly differentiated from OA journals not included in the list. The same bibliometric comparison against comparable non-OA journals reveal similar, but less marked, differences in citation and publication growth.

show abstract

Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals

Cited by 39 publications

References 24 publications

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature

Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy

Journals in Beall's list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About