Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?

Demir, Selçuk Beşir

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008

Cited by 175 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of 144 selected studies, 38 (26%; 21/27 studies listed in ScopeMed, all nine studies found solely on Google, seven studies published in OMICS, and one study published in Medknow) were published by predatory journals or predatory publishers (Table SI, online supporting information). Studies have found that young and inexperienced researchers from developing countries are more prone to publish in predatory journals . A recent study found that India has the highest number of authors publishing in predatory journals and India has the largest number of predatory publishers/journals in the biomedical field .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have found that young and inexperienced researchers from developing countries are more prone to publish in predatory journals. 111,112 A recent study found that India has the highest number of authors publishing in predatory journals and India has the largest number of predatory publishers/journals in the biomedical field. 113 With the pressure to get promoted, [114][115][116] lack of research monitoring, 116 and the likelihood of circumventing rejection based on the lack of quality and readability, HCPs are paying predatory journals to get their work published quickly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment and re/habilitation of children with cerebral palsy in India: a scoping review

Jindal

MacDermid

Rosenbaum

et al. 2019

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To describe the nature and extent of the literature addressing the medical and its re/habilitative management of cerebral palsy (CP) in India. Method Online worldwide scholarly databases, research hosting directories, Indian publishing houses, and grey literature were used to identify papers published between 2005 and 2016. We retrieved 144 English language papers that described the medical and rehabilitative management of Indian children with CP. Results Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research designs are published by a variety of health care professionals in India. Intervention (45%) and observational studies (30%) predominate. Outcomes were categorized using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework, with body structure and function most reported and activity/participation least reported; 57% described its re/habilitation interventions and 43% were medical interventions. Interpretation There is a substantial body of CP research in India that focuses on interventions to reduce impairments, with minimal attention given to activities and participation, environmental, and personal factors. Twenty‐six per cent of studies are published in what appear to be ‘predatory journals’. This paper serves as an alert about the presence of ‘predatory journals’ in medicine that may introduce publication bias, which can distort results reported in those studies individually, or from conclusions drawn in reviews that contain those studies. What this paper adds Cerebral palsy research in India focuses on interventions to reduce impairment. Activities, participation, and environmental factors are minimally addressed. Quantitative studies are more common than qualitative studies. Many Indian studies are published in journals that are not indexed in worldwide databases of scholarly journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment and re/habilitation of children with cerebral palsy in India: a scoping review

Jindal

MacDermid

Rosenbaum

et al. 2019

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The future of services like Sci‐Hub, RG, OMICS, and even the publishers such as Elsevier will likely depend on the attitudes and practices of scholars. There is increasing evidence, for instance, that a significant portion of researchers have submitted their manuscripts to so‐called predatory publishers such as OMICS with full knowledge of their low quality (Demir, ; Frandsen, ; Kurt, ). Likewise, some academics freely provide their university usernames and passwords to grant access to Sci‐Hub (Nicholas, Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, et al ., ), while others willingly, perhaps in some cases even gleefully, surreptitiously download.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci‐Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University

Manley

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2017 Sci‐Hub judgement has, to date, proven unenforceable, and it appears that enforcing the 2019 OMICS judgement will similarly prove challenging. Business developments and changing expectations over sharing digital content may also undermine the impact of the ongoing cases against ResearchGate and Georgia State University. Stakeholders should consider these limitations when deciding how to resolve scholarly publishing disputes.

show abstract

“…While the profiles of scholars who publish in predatory journals and who cite these articles are well-studied [11][12][13][14][15][16], little is known about the scholars who contribute to the peer review of these outlets. Amongst other factors, this is because peer review, like most other forms of academic gate-keeping, often is not publicly observable [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

Severin

Strinzel

Egger

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively wellunderstood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals. We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally? Methods:We matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics' journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric. For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour. Results:We matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews). The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively). The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions. Conclusion:The characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow. 3.34 (5.64) 1.91 (1.21)

show abstract

Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?

Cited by 175 publications

References 52 publications

Treatment and re/habilitation of children with cerebral palsy in India: a scoping review

Treatment and re/habilitation of children with cerebral palsy in India: a scoping review

On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci‐Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About