Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding

Abstract

In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003–2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority–or experience level–of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.

Untitled

“…This is perhaps not as surprising as it seems at first glance, experienced researchers from the developed world, as represented by the faculty of the University of South Denmark [Shaghaei et al, 2018], publish in predatory journals, too, and mainly for the same reasons as do researchers from developing countries: lack of awareness, speed and ease of the publication process, and a chance to get elsewhere rejected work published. The findings by other researchers [Alrawadieh, 2018;Eykens et al, 2019] also confirm that senior authors are visibly present on the predatory publishing scene, which, as the latter put it, render the assumption that predatory publications are authored mainly by inexperienced authors 'highly doubtful' . For example, experienced researchers in the Brazilian academic system were the ones more likely to publish in predatory journals [Perlin et al, 2018].…”

“…In fact, many researchers, regardless of their career experience, geographic location, and disciplinary affiliation, seems to be involved [Perlin et al, 2018]. Thus, predatory publishing is not only an issue in developing countries [Eykens et al, 2019;Moher et al, 2017], specifically with regard to tourism and hospitality [Alrawadieh, 2018]. Indeed, according to the findings of the latter, the socioeconomic and geographical dispersion of the problem may be quite wide: in a sample of 1,907 papers in more than 200 journals, thought likely to be predatory, more than half had authors from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank.…”

National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

“…Cabell's Predatory reports) and white lists (e.g. DOAJ; see also Eykens et al, 2019). Support the expert evaluation with information from such sources.…”

“…• Cabell's Journalytics and Predatory Reports. Cabell's Journalytics lists over 11,000 peer-reviewed journals across all fields, whereas the Predatory Reports list over 13,000 journals with identified questionable practices according to 60 criteria (Eykens et al, 2019).…”

Methodological considerations for identifying questionable publishing in a national context: The case of Swedish Higher Education Institutions

“…The closest studies to the present one are Eykens, Guns, et al (2018) and Eykens, Guns, et al (2019). For some time, this group has used Beall's lists in conjunction with WoS and the DOAJ whitelist in order to screen registered publications in the performance-based research funding system in Flanders, Belgium.…”