Editorial

Coelho, Jório

doi:10.1590/0370-44672017710188

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A New York Times ( NYT ) article that was written by Gina Kolata is worth reading (Kolata, 2017a), but not precisely for the reasons indicated in an editorial by the Editor-in-Chief of an open access (OA) journal, REM - International Engineering Journal ( REM )[1], Prof Jório Coelho (Coelho, 2018), as we explain in detail next. REM is indexed in Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) as well as Scopus, and published by a philanthropic group, the Fundação Gorceix[2].…”

Section: Hyped Media and Misleading Editorials: The Risks To Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

How hyped media and misleading editorials can influence impressions about Beall’s lists of “predatory” publications

Silva¹,

Tsigaris

2019

JICES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The issue of “predatory” publishing and the scholarly value of journals that claim to operate within an academic framework, namely, by using peer review and editorial quality control, but do not, while attempting to extract open access (OA) or other publication-related fees, is an extremely important topic that affects academics around the globe. Until 2017, global academia relied on two now-defunct Jeffrey Beall “predatory” OA publishing blacklists to select their choice of publishing venue. This paper aims to explore how media has played a role in spinning public impressions about this issue. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on a 2017 New York Times article by Gina Kolata, on a selected number of peer reviewed published papers on the topic of “predatory” publications and on an editorial by the Editor-in-Chief of REM, a SciELO- and Scopus-indexed OA journal. Findings The Kolata article offers biased, inaccurate and potentially misleading information about the state of “predatory” publishing: it relies heavily on the assumption that the now-defunct Beall blacklists were accurate when in fact they are not; it relies on a paper published in a non-predatory (i.e., non-Beall-listed) non-OA journal that claimed incorrectly the existence of financial rewards by faculty members of a Canadian business school from “predatory” publications; it praised a sting operation that used methods of deception and falsification to achieve its conclusions. The authors show how misleading information by the New York Times was transposed downstream via the REM editorial. Originality/value Education of academics.

show abstract

Section: Hyped Media and Misleading Editorials: The Risks To Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%