Knowledge production on predatory publishing: A systematic review

Mertkan, Sefika; Aliusta, Gülen Onurkan; Suphi, Nilgün

doi:10.1002/leap.1380

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, 2019; Demir, 2018; Mertkan et al. , 2021a, b; Mills and Inouye, 2021; Pyne, 2017). “[A]n instrumental ethos of measurement in the management of academic work” (Spence, 2019) and exclusive reliance on whitelists based on journal indexing and Journal Impact Factors has deleterious consequences for research cultures and the integrity of science, which underline the need to revise research evaluation policies in ways that reveal commitment to quality to discourage “questionable” publication practices (Finkel, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressured to publish: stories of inexperienced researchers

Mertkan

Aliusta

Bayraklı

2022

JOCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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”.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressured to publish: stories of inexperienced researchers

Mertkan

Aliusta

Bayraklı

2022

JOCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…only just beginning to understand the dangers and implications of predatory journals, with 89 percent of scholarly articles written about them having been published since 2016 (Mertkan, Aliusta, and Suphi 2021).…”

Section: Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that predatory journals are focused on accepting as many publications as possible rather than screening for quality, it has become a significant avenue for health misinformation and low-quality content. As a field, we are only just beginning to understand the dangers and implications of predatory journals, with 89 percent of scholarly articles written about them having been published since 2016 (Mertkan, Aliusta, and Suphi 2021).…”

Section: Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

Swire‐Thompson¹,

Lazer²

2022

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific- sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a “call to arms,” given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public’s trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.

show abstract

“…Studies have uncovered malicious agents who seek to profit by exploiting journals' online activity. While the existence of predatory journals is common knowledge in the academic world (Beall, 2012; Lukic et al, 2014; Mertkan et al, 2021), other, less frequent, forms of online exploitation have also been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic journals' usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media

Coates

2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The internet has brought both benefits and risks for academia. Predatory publishing and conferences are well-known, and less common academic cybercrime has also been identified, such as fraudulent conferences and journal hijacking. This study aimed to explore one further possible method for deceiving academics, namely, fraudulent accounts on social media. The study focused on two easily exploitable gaps in journals' social media engagement: whether journals have accounts on the most common social media platforms and whether journals use the same username across all their accounts. Evidence of fraudulent social media accounts was also sought. Drawing from a sample of 50 journals, the results indicate that many journals do not use social media, journals often use multiple usernames and fewer than half the accounts were officially verified. Some apparently fraudulent activity was found, but this was notably limited in scope and appeared to be politically rather than economically oriented.Further potential for deception was evident in accounts unaffiliated with a journal but registered with the journal's usernames and in the opportunity to create new social media accounts with journals' usernames. Journals are recommended to recognize this threat and some possible countermeasures are suggested.

show abstract

Knowledge production on predatory publishing: A systematic review

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Pressured to publish: stories of inexperienced researchers

Pressured to publish: stories of inexperienced researchers

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

Academic journals' usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About