La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Rakotoary, Sarah; Bador, Pascal

doi:10.1051/nss/2022008

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first of these dangers is evident, on the one hand, by the data on the level of security of their websites that clearly discourages the utilization of these websites to make payments of article processing fees, and, on the other hand, by the limited, if not negative, impact of these publications on the research profile of the authors who publish in them. The second level of risk, the collective risk, emerges when considering that disciplines in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities are founded on more questioned epistemologies (Althaus, 2019), and, therefore, more exposed to the risks posed by predatory publications as disseminating structures to legitimize ideologies (Boukacem‐Zeghmouri et al, 2020) or simply to spread falsehoods or misinformation. In this context, the collected data and the results can help to address this challenge by the implementation of awareness campaigns and training initiatives for promoting consciousness on the issue among academics in Education, and, consequently, the refusal to submit manuscripts to these publishers (Frandsen, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon began from 2008 to 2009 (Taylor, 2021) and its penetration in scientific communication systems has been increasing annually (Bagues et al, 2019; Perlin et al, 2017; Shen & Björk, 2015). It has been estimated that there were 1,800 such journals in 2010, 8,000 in 2015, ~13,000 in 2020 (Boukacem‐Zeghmouri et al, 2020), and over 15,000 as listed in Cabells Predatory Reports in 2021 (Cabells, 2021). Therefore, it is not surprising that this situation has been described as one of the greatest current challenges in scientific communication (Machacek & Srholec, 2021) and, consequently, a serious threat to science (Taylor, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the phenomenon of presumed predatory scientific publications in the field of Educational Sciences, and the utilization of email by editors to request manuscripts. It examined, using content analysis methods, 210 emails received by three professors of the field of Education, at a Spanish university with different research profiles over a period of 3 months. Through analysis of the unsolicited emails a total of 139 journals and 37 publishers were identified and examined using: (a) the two main predatory journal inventories (Beall's list and Cabells' Predatory Reports), and (b) six of the major scientific bibliographic databases. The publishers and their websites were also analyzed, as well as the basic aspects of the emails' content. The majority of the unsolicited emails were from predatory journals or publishers and half of the article requests did not match the field of the recipient. In addition, it is relevant to note that more than half of the domains of predatory publishers analysed have untrustworthy security levels. The data provided relevant information on the phenomenon of predation in scientific publications in the field of Education and, most importantly, provided evidence for developing training and preventive strategies to tackle it.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This provides fertile ground for the development of predators seeking to take advantage of the situation. The number of predatory journals is currently estimated at 13,000 journals with more than hundred thousand published articles (Boukacem-Zeghmouri et al, 2020;C. Shen & Björk, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shen & Björk, 2015). Boukacem-Zeghmouri et al (2020) provided a detailed description of the predation phenomenon in the scholarly publishing. Predatory journals are characterized by three main strategies: all predatory journals are Open Access (OA) journals based on a "author-pays" business model, in which peer review is not rigorous (or even absent) and displays "standard markers of scientific publications" (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the peer review reports: does size matter?

Maddi,

Miotti

2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amidst the ever-expanding realm of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals, the focus on peer review remains paramount for scientometricians and sociologists of science. Despite this attention, there is a notable scarcity of empirical investigations into the tangible impact of peer review on publication quality. This study aims to address this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of how peer review contributes to the quality of scholarly publications, as measured by the citations they receive.Utilizing an adjusted dataset comprising 57,482 publications from Publons to Web of Science and employing the Raking Ratio method, our study reveals intriguing insights. Specifically, our findings shed light on a nuanced relationship between the length of reviewer reports and the subsequent citations received by publications. Through a robust regression analysis, we establish that, beginning from 947 words, the length of reviewer reports is significantly associated with an increase in citations.These results not only confirm the initial hypothesis that longer reports indicate requested improvements, thereby enhancing the quality and visibility of articles, but also underscore the importance of timely and comprehensive reviewer reports. Furthermore, insights from Publons' data suggest that open access to reports can influence reviewer behavior, encouraging more detailed reports.Beyond the scholarly landscape, our findings prompt a reevaluation of the role of reviewers, emphasizing the need to recognize and value this resource-intensive yet underappreciated activity in institutional evaluations. Additionally, the study sounds a cautionary note regarding the challenges faced by peer review in the context of an increasing volume of submissions, potentially compromising the vigilance of peers in swiftly assessing numerous articles.

show abstract

“…Shen & Björk, 2015). (Boukacem-Zeghmouri et al, 2020) provided a detailed description of the predation phenomenon in the scholarly publishing. Predatory journals are characterized by three main strategies: all predatory journals are Open Access (OA) based on a "author-pays" business model, in which peer review is not rigorous (or even absent) and displays "standard markers" of scientific publications (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter?

Maddi

Miotti

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic of peer review over the past twenty years given its primordial role in a context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals. Although the topic is addressed under different prisms, few studies have empirically analyzed to what extent it can affect the quality of publications. Here we study (1) the link between the length of reviewers' reports and the citations received by publications, (2) The threshold (expressed in number of words in reviewers' reports) at which the effect on citations becomes statistically significant. To do this, we used data from the Publons database (58,093 peer review reports). We have adjusted this sample to match the WoS database structure. Our regression results show that peer review positively affects the quality of publications. In other words, the more in-depth (longer) the referees' reports are, the greater the publication improvements will be, resulting in an increase in citations received. This result is important from both the point of view of reviewers and that of journal's chiefs-editors. Even if it is not a remunerated activity, it is important that it be more valued at least within the framework of research evaluation exercises, given its positive impact on science. On the thresholds, the results differ between the types of regression used. The threshold is 1250 words (about one page) for Negative Binomial regression, 1400 words for Poisson regression and 2400 words for GLM regression. These results suggest that a report that brings the most value to the publication is a deep report, which naturally requires more time to produce. This is an important result in a context where the deadlines granted to reviewers tend to decrease for some publishers.

show abstract

La prédation dans le champ de la publication scientifique : un objet de recherche révélateur des mutations de la communication scientifique ouverte

Cited by 7 publications

References 69 publications

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

On the peer review reports: does size matter?

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About