Are predatory journals contaminating science? An analysis on the Cabells' Predatory Report

Akça, Sümeyye; Akbulut, Müge

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102366

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Significant changes in monitoring and evaluation of Indonesian research grants are needed alongside the improved international research collaborations. journals have targeted and published predominantly social science scholars (see, for instance, Akça & Akbulut, 2021) and only scant research has been conducted to date on predatory journals in social sciences (Cobey et al, 2018).…”

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, using a machine learning technique, it classifies and predicts the possibility of publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science researchers. Moreover, the study focuses only on social science publications since prior studies have indicated that predatory journals have targeted and published predominantly social science scholars (see, for instance, Akça & Akbulut, 2021) and only scant research has been conducted to date on predatory journals in social sciences (Cobey et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus‐indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower‐ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes.

show abstract

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citation contamination is a phenomenon that has been lately garnering great attention in science, technology and medicine (see, e.g. Akça and Akbulut, 2021;Anderson, 2019;Bj€ ork et al, 2020;Oermann et al, 2019;Severin and Low, 2019). Citation contamination is a serious science integrity issue that should warrant the attention of researchers in every scientific domain or discipline.…”

Section: Citation Contamination: a Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contamination by citations: references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature

Moussa¹

2021

SAJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposePredatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.Design/methodology/approachUsing Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).FindingsResults indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.Research limitations/implicationsThis study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.Practical implicationsThese findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.Originality/valueThis study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

show abstract

“…Similarly, in their literature search of grant peer review, Guthrie et al (2017) found relatively strong evidence for anti-innovation bias. journals may hinder the development of a robust body of knowledge (Dunleavy, 2021), by introducing false, misleading, unverified, or otherwise unjustified claims into the scholarly literature (Akça & Akbulut, 2021;Akerlof & Michaillat, 2019;Ioannidis, 2016;Smaldino & McElreath, 2016). The offshoot of these differences, however, is that journals can, in principle, be appraised and contrasted in accordance to how well they function in their role as gatekeepers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Dunleavy

2022

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality -focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality -one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

show abstract

Are predatory journals contaminating science? An analysis on the Cabells' Predatory Report

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

Contamination by citations: references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About