Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the 'predatory publishing' discourse

Inouye, Kelsey; Mills, David

doi:10.1002/leap.1377

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is to be expected that open science and its implementation will accelerate this transformation. All of this is also happening while authors are expressing concern about the possibility of their work falling into the hands of predatory journals [22].…”

Section: Transparency As a Vector And Value In The Evolution Of Scholarly Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, there is a need for clear metadata policies that allow for the interoperability of scholarly articles and the ability to apply data-mining and knowledge-extraction mechanisms that are only possible with quality metadata. Plan S, for example, seeks to achieve quality standards, although, for the moment, it has placed them in the field of non-mandatory supplementary indicators for journals that must or want to comply with Plan S [22]. -Indicator 19 (monitoring self-citation) at 0 and indicator 5 (itemizing costs of the publication) at 1 point are the lowest on the analysis (Figure 1).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principal goal of the research study is to analyze the transparency of a selection of academic journals based on an analysis model with 20 indicators grouped into 6 parameters. Given the evident interest in and commitment to transparency among quality academic journals and researchers’ difficulties in choosing journals that meet a set of criteria, we present indicators that may help researchers choose journals while also helping journals to consider what information from the editorial process to publish, or not, on their websites to attract authors in the highly competitive environment of today’s scholarly communication. To test the validity of the indicators, we analyze a small sample: the Spanish Communications and Library and Information Science journals listed in the Scimago Journal Rank. The results confirm that our analysis model is valid and can be extrapolated to other disciplines and journals.

show abstract

Section: Transparency As a Vector And Value In The Evolution Of Scholarly Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither the criteria behind the Chinese list nor the related policy documents seem to be influenced by initiatives outside of China such as Beall's list (Beall, 2015) or Cabells' Predatory Reports, which is a product for the international library market. Lists of questionable journals are controversial (Basken, 2017;Frandsen, 2019;Inouye & Mills, 2021). We therefore underline that our analysis is not an evaluation of the journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Lists of questionable journals are controversial (Basken, 2017; Frandsen, 2019; Inouye & Mills, 2021). We therefore underline that our analysis is not an evaluation of the journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The motivations and criteria behind China's list of questionable journals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On December 31, 2020, The National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) released a list of 65 international scientific journals, all of them indexed by the Web of Science, that were said to be potentially in conflict with academic rigour. The list immediately influenced the publication patterns of Chinese researchers. A year later, on December 31, 2021, CAS released a revised and reduced list of 35 questionable journals and said the publishers in the meantime had reacted constructively and improved the procedures of their journals. This study aims to provide an understanding of the motivations and criteria behind the list, partly by reviewing Chinese policy documents and public debates, partly with a quantitative analysis to detect the relative importance of the criteria used to select the journals for the list.

show abstract

“…Although the motives in predatory publishing can be complex (Inouye & Mills, 2021; Mills & Inouye, 2021), there is a good likelihood that the goals of cybercrime that target academia are solely profit‐based (Hussaindeen, 2021). Methods for making money from online deception include selling unpublished papers, charging fees for publication, and selling academics' email addresses (Butler, 2013; Dadkhah, 2016a; Sorooshian, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic journals' usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media

Coates

2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The internet has brought both benefits and risks for academia. Predatory publishing and conferences are well-known, and less common academic cybercrime has also been identified, such as fraudulent conferences and journal hijacking. This study aimed to explore one further possible method for deceiving academics, namely, fraudulent accounts on social media. The study focused on two easily exploitable gaps in journals' social media engagement: whether journals have accounts on the most common social media platforms and whether journals use the same username across all their accounts. Evidence of fraudulent social media accounts was also sought. Drawing from a sample of 50 journals, the results indicate that many journals do not use social media, journals often use multiple usernames and fewer than half the accounts were officially verified. Some apparently fraudulent activity was found, but this was notably limited in scope and appeared to be politically rather than economically oriented.Further potential for deception was evident in accounts unaffiliated with a journal but registered with the journal's usernames and in the opportunity to create new social media accounts with journals' usernames. Journals are recommended to recognize this threat and some possible countermeasures are suggested.

show abstract

Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the 'predatory publishing' discourse

Cited by 20 publications

References 71 publications

Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations

Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations

The motivations and criteria behind China's list of questionable journals

Academic journals' usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About