The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist.
Cheating is an academically dishonest behavior about which there has been a thrust of research. However, it has not been extensively researched in an Iranian context. Therefore, the current study was conducted with 310 Iranian students. A cheating questionnaire was devised and administered to the participants. Certain demographic variables were investigated. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyze the obtained data. The results of the descriptive statistics revealed that cheating was common among participants, and most students did not harbor any negative attitude toward cheating or at least were neutral about it. The most common method of cheating was “letting others look at their papers while taking exams.” The most common reason for cheating was “not being ready for the exam.” As for inferential statistics, one-way analysis of variance, an independent t-test, and correlational analyses were used to test the effect and relationship of demographic variables on and between the cheating behaviors of the participants. It was found that none of the two demographic variables of gender and year level had any effect on students’ cheating behaviors. Furthermore, achievement scores and age were not significantly correlated with cheating behavior scores.
Given the significant number of the studies conducted to explore construct validity, adopting various approaches, and the paucity of the studies that employed the experimental approach to validation, the current study was aimed at exploring the adequacy of the experimental approach to construct validation, drawing upon advertising literacy as the construct of the researchers’ concern. To this end, the researchers pursued the experimentation, test administration, and validation phases, respectively. To identify the effect of the experimentation, an independent samples t-test was run; there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups. The closing phase was devoted to verification of the construct validity of the test. Hence, it was referred to the divergence of scores on the test of advertising literacy and a midterm examination of general English proficiency. The results indicated a low correlation between the two sets of scores. Therefore, it could be argued for the desirable degree of construct validity. Accordingly, the adequacy of the approach is evidentially verified.
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.