Intensified pressure to publish is a hallmark of a rapidly evolving higher education field where the faculty of any hue cannot avoid the ‘publish or perish’ treadmill. Growing need to publish more and to do so fast have resulted in the proliferation of pseudo scholarly publications many regards as ‘predatory’. This article provides a systematic review of research studies on so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, a new but fast-growing area of research, with a particular focus on the awareness of prospective authors about so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, the profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and the causal factors encouraging authors to publish in such outlets. It synthetizes the results of research studies on the topic to identify gaps and trends in the existing knowledgebase to guide further research. Results indicate so-called ‘predatory’ articles are authored by scholars from all fields and levels of academic experience rather than by inexperienced scholars only and ‘predatory’ contributions are not limited to developing countries, suggesting geographical location and author experience fail to explain the author profile of ‘predatory’ articles. Findings of this review suggest causal factors include research evaluation policies and publication pressure that emerge from the research environment in which scholars operate authors’ limited capacity to publish in ‘legitimate’ journals and conventions of so-called ‘predatory’ publishers. This indicates meaningful action might address all these factors in combination, rather than focus on them in isolation.
The systematic review of the research reported in this paper was conducted within the context of efforts to understand and combat predatory publishing, a new but fast‐growing area of research. It synthesizes the trends observed in knowledge production in predatory publishing, with a particular focus on the volume and distribution over time within different journals. It also looks at the composition of the predatory publishing literature in terms of the type of study, methods, topics, field of study, and contexts where research was conducted. Data were extracted from ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus and identified 228 articles for evaluation published in 171 journals. The results demonstrate that the literature on predatory publishing is new but fast growing, with 88.6% of studies published since 2016. Only 37.3% reported empirical research, and the majority of these were quantitative studies with weak statistical tests. Medical journals carried the most articles. We conclude that scholarship on predatory publishing is in the early stages of development, and it is thinly distributed across journals, fields, and research contexts. It was surprising to find no studies in leading higher education journals, and this study reveals a research area that is still developing.
PurposeImplementation of research evaluation policies based on neoliberal orientations of performativity has transformed higher education institutions globally, reshaping academic work and the academic profession. Most lately, the mantra of “publish or no degree” has become the norm in many contexts. There has been little empirical research into the unintended consequences of this neoliberal academic performativity for inexperienced researchers. This article focuses on the role institutional research evaluation policies play on doctoral students and early-career doctoral graduates’ publication practices and on their decision to sometimes publish in journals with ethically “questionable” publishing standards in particular through the concept of figured worlds.Design/methodology/approachThe study was conducted in a higher education setting employing a variety of research incentive schemes to boost research productivity where “publish or no degree” policy is the norm. It employs qualitative approach and involves in-depth interviews with nine doctoral students and seven early career academics who have been working part-time or full-time for five years following PhD completion.FindingsFindings demonstrate publishing in journals with ethically “questionable” publishing standards is not always simply the result of naivety or inexperience. Some authors choose these journals in order to retain a sense of self-efficacy in the face of rejection by more highly ranked journals. Under institutional pressure to publish, they are socialized into this “shadow academia” through (existing) academic networks, conferences and journal special issues.Originality/valueIt is often assumed that scholars are trapped into “questionable” journals through the use of unsolicited emails. This paper challenges this assumption by demonstrating the crucial role research evaluation policies based on neoliberal orientations of performativity and contextual dynamics play on the publication practices of doctoral students and early-career doctoral graduates on their decision to submit to journals with “questionable” publication practices. It introduces the concept of unethical publication brokering, an informal network of ties promising fast and easy publication in outlets that “count”.
ÖzAnahtar Kelimeler GirişSon zamanlarda, okullarda yapılan öğretimin niteliğini artırmak amacıyla dünyanın her yerinde eğitim reformları ve eğitimi geliştirme çalışmaları yapılmaktadır. Günümüzde, öğrencilerin iletişim kurma, etkili düşünme ve usavurma, yargıda bulunma, karmaşık sorunları çözme ve işbirliği yaparak çalışma becerilerini kazanmalarını sağlayacak biçimde öğretimin geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması önemtaşımaktadır (Gijbels, Van de Watering, Dochy ve Van den Bossche, 2006). Öğretimin öğretmenin tekelinde olduğu, öğrencilerin ise öğretmen tarafından aktarılan bilginin edilgen alıcısı konumunda bulunduğu (Özer, 2008;Vighnarajah, Luan ve Bakar, 2008) öğretmen-merkezli öğretim, ezberi özendirdiği ve ayrıca öğrencileri günlük yaşamda çok az kullanılan aşırı bilgiyle yüklediği için uzun zamandır eleştirilmektedir. Bu yüzden, öğrencilere gerekli becerilerin kazandırılmasını sağlayacak yeni bir öğretme ve öğrenme yaklaşımının edinilmesi kaçınılmaz görünmektedir.Öğrenci-merkezli öğrenme (ÖMÖ), okullarda gerçekleştirilen öğretimin niteliğini artırmak amacıyla öğretmen-merkezli öğretime tepki olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. ÖMÖ, öğretmen ve/veya içerik yerine öğrenciyi merkeze alan bir öğretme ve öğrenme yaklaşımıdır. ÖMÖ, öğrencilerin gereksinmelerini, özelliklerini, yeteneklerini, ilgi alanlarını ve tercihlerini göz önünde bulundurur, onları karar verme sürecine katar ve etkin katılımda bulunmaya özendirir (Attard, Di lorio,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.