Predatory publishing and the Ghana experience: A call to action for information professionals

Abstract

Researchers in developing countries are more likely to publish in predatory journals (Xia et al., 2015). This study investigates the understanding that research scientists in Ghana, a developing country, have about predatory journals and their publishing practices. Using a mixed methods approach, research scientists within one cluster of research organizations in Ghana were asked about their awareness of the characteristics of predatory journals, based on their own experience as a researcher. Their publications were also examined. The results indicate that most of the research scientists in this study are aware of predatory journals and are often solicited by them, but are less aware of tools they can use to determine the quality of a particular publication. In addition, 12% of the articles published that make up 24% of the unique journals in which these researchers published could be considered “predatory”. The findings of this research are significant because they indicate that research scientists may have more awareness of predatory journals than is expected, but that they may lack the training or tools necessary for deciding whether or not a journal is legitimate.

Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences

“…The final review corpus of 16 includes 10 papers published in the fields of librarianship and scholarly publishing, as well as 2 from Medicine, 3 from the social sciences, and 1 in the field of research policy. Seven focus on specific national contexts that are on the peripheries of the global science system, including Nigeria (Omobowale et al ., 2014), Colombia (Chavarro et al ., 2017), Ghana (Atiso, Kammer, & Bossaller, 2019), India (Seethapathy, Santhosh Kumar, & Hareesha, 2016), Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Shehata & Elgllab, 2018), Turkey (Demir, 2018), and Iran (Ebadi & Zamani, 2018). Eight carried out international online surveys, with a significant number of responses from scholars based in the global South (and especially India) as well as from the USA.…”

“…Five of the research designs carried out in‐depth interviews with academics (Atiso et al ., 2019; Chavarro et al ., 2017; Demir, 2018; Omobowale et al ., 2014; Shaghaei et al ., 2018), either to supplement surveys or as a stand‐alone method. These interview‐based designs provide rich empirical insights, allowing for a deeper exploration of the issues facing scholars, and a range of further explanations.…”

“…Atiso et al . (2019) describe the uncertainty of individual Ghanaian academics about the legitimacy of certain journals, and the importance of mentoring in helping encourage informed publication decisions.…”

“…They note the eclipse of local 'unpaid' journals, and suggest that growing expectation to publish in 'international' or what they call 'foreign paid' journals, could defeat efforts to move Nigerian scholarship into the 'global scholarly mainstream' (ibid, p. 666). Atiso et al (2019) describe the uncertainty of individual Ghanaian academics about the legitimacy of certain journals, and the importance of mentoring in helping encourage informed publication decisions.…”

“…Drawing on local knowledge but also local prejudices, Omobowale et al (2014) refer judgementally to the 'sheer ignorance' of some Nigerian authors. Atiso et al (2019), on the other hand, claim that Ghana's academics are aware of the difference between legitimate and so-called 'predatory' journals, but that the latter 'take advantage of scholars' frustrations by offering a quick and easy path to publication (as opposed to the long, tortuous and uncertain journey of traditional publishing)' (ibid, p. 279). This could also be understood as a lack of tolerance for the slowness, inequities and unpredictability of peer review in an academic culture already defined by gatekeeping and patronage.…”