A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations

Research Policy

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 462-477

  Bagues, Manuel ^a   Sylos Labini, Mauro ^b   Zinovyeva, Natalia ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Academic evaluations; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC EVALUATIONS; CITATION INDEXES; COMMITTEE MEMBERS; INFORMATION ASYMMETRY; PEER REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC EVALUATIONS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

ENGINEERING;

EID: 85046121889     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Zinovyeva, N., Connections in Scientific Committees and Applicants’ Self-Selection: Evidence from a Natural Randomized Experiment. 2016 IZA Discussion Paper No. 9594.
2. Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Zinovyeva, N., Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter?. Am. Econ. Rev. 107:4 (2017), 1207–1238.
3. Beall, J., Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 2012, 179.
4. Beall, J., What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochem. Med. 27:2 (2017), 273–278.
5. Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C.A., Peracchi, F., Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: evidence from Italy. Res. Policy 44:2 (2015), 451–466.
6. Bohannon, J., Who's afraid of peer review?. Science 342 (2013), 60–65.
7. Butler, D., The dark side of publishing. Nature 495 (2013), 433–435.
8. Butler, L., Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications: the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Res. Policy 32:1 (2003), 143–155.
9. Clark, J., Smith, R., Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, 2015.
10. Djuric, D., Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: The Romanian Connection. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21 (2015), 83–202.
11. Gibbons, R., Incentives in organization. J. Econ. Perspect. 12:4 (1998), 115–132.
12. Harvie, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., Weir, K., Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road. Prometheus: Crit. Stud. Innov. 31:3 (2014), 229–239.
13. Hicks, D., Performance based university research funding systems. Res. Policy 41:2 (2012), 251–261.
14. King, D.A., The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430 (2004), 311–316.
15. Kolata, G., Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too). The New York Times, 2013 April 7.
16. Moed, H.F., Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. 2005, Springer.
17. Moer, D., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M.M., Galipeau, J., Avey, M.T., Ahmadzai, N., Alabousi, M., Barbeau, P., Beck, A., Raymond, D., Frank, R., Ghannad, M., Hamel, C., Hersi, M., Hutton, B., Isupov, I., McGrath, T.A., McInnes, M.D.F., Page, M.J., Pratt, M., Pussegoda, K., Shea, B., Srivastava, A., Stevens, A., Thavorn, K., van Katwyk, S., Ward, R., Wolfe, D., Yazdi, F., Yu, A.M., Ziai, H., Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature 549:7670 (2017), 23–25.
18. Moosa, I.A., A critique of the bucket classification of journals: the ABDC list as an example. Econ. Rec. 92:298 (2016), 448–463.
19. Omobowale, A.O., Akanle, O., Adeniran, A.I., Adegboyega, K., Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Curr. Sociol. 62:5 (2014), 666–684.
20. Rebora, G., Turri, R., The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face. Res. Policy 42:9 (2013), 1657–1666.
21. Régibeau, K., Rocke, E., Research assessment and recognized excellence: simple bibliometrics for more efficient academic research evaluations. Econ. Policy 31:88 (2016), 607–609.
22. Rew, D., An Introduction to the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). 2015 (accessed 14.03.18) https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/95116/general_introduction_csab.pdf.
23. Seethapathy, G.S., Santhosh Kumar, J.U., Hareesha, A.S., India's scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Curr. Sci. 111:11 (2016), 1759–1764.
24. Shen, C., Björk, B., ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med., 13(230), 2015.
25. Silver, A., Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature News, 2017 May 31.
26. Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., Pisanski, K., Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature 543 (2017), 481–483.
27. Sterligov, I., Savina, T., Riding with the metric tide: ‘predatory’ journals in Scopus. Higher Educ. Russia Beyond 1:7 (2016), 9–12.
28. Vinkler, P., The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators. 2010, Oxford, Chandos Publishing.
29. Wilhite, A., Fong, E.A., Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science 335:6068 (2012), 542–543.
30. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., Franssen, T., The Metric Tide: Literature Review. Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management., 2015, HEFCE.
31. Xia, J., Harmon, J.L., Connolly, K.G., Donnelly, R.M., Anderson, M.R., Howard, H.A., Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals?. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66:7 (2015), 1406–1417.
32. Zinovyeva, N., Bagues, M., The role of connections in academic promotions. Am. Econ. J.: Appl. Econ. 7:2 (2015), 264–292.