Methodological considerations for identifying questionable publishing in a national context: The case of swedish higher education institutions

Quantitative Science Studies

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 505-524

  Nelhans, Gustaf ^a,b   Bodin, Theo ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

National level; Publication blacklists; Publication ethics; Questionable publishing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85097096107     PISSN: None     EISSN: 26413337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00033     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Asadi, A., Rahbar, N., Asadi, M., Asadi, F., & Paji, K. K. (2017). Online-based approaches to identify real journals and publishers from hijacked ones. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9747-9
2. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
3. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. da Silva, J. A. T. (2017). Preprints: ethical hazard or academic liberation? Kome-an International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 5(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.17646/kome.2017.26
5. Dadkhah, M., & Maliszewski, T. (2015). Hijacked journals—threats and challenges to countries’ scientific ranking. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2015.072819
6. Das, S., & Chatterjee, S. S. (2018). Cabell’s blacklist: A new way to tackle predatory journals. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 40(2), 197–198. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM. IJPSYM_290_17
7. Demir, S. B. (2018a). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008
8. Demir, S. B. (2018b). Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2053–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4
9. Editorial. (2018). Nature, 562(308). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07033-5
10. Erfanmanesh, M., & Pourhossein, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory open access journals: A case of Iran. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9547-y
11. Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
12. Eykens, J., Guns, R., Rahman, A. I. M. M., & Engels, T. C. E. (2019). Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding. PLOS ONE, 14(11), e0224541. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224541
13. Eykens, J., Guns, R., Rahman, A. I. M. M., Sīle, L., & Engels, T. C. E. (2018). Predatory open access journals: A review of past screenings within the Flemish performance based research f undi ng syst em ( 2014–2018) . Proceedi ngs of t he 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden.
14. Ferris, L. E., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.030
15. Frandsen, T. F. (2017). Are predatory journals undermining the credi bi l i t y of sci ence? A bi bl i omet ri c anal ysi s of ci t ers. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1513–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x
16. Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Voronov, A. A., Gorin, S. V., Koroleva, A. M., & Kitas, G. D. (2016). Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. Journal of Korean Medical Sci ence, 31( 9), 1351–1354. ht t ps: / / doi. or g/10. 3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351
17. Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
18. Hansson, G., Barriere, S. G., Gurell, J., Lindholm, M., Lundin, P., & Wikgren, M. (2019). The Swedish research barometer 2019: The Swedish research system in international comparison ( VR1915). Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.
19. Hoffecker, L. (2018). Cabells Scholarly Analytics. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.403
20. Jalalian, M., & Dadkhah, M. (2015). The full story of 90 hijacked j our nal s f r om August 2011 t o J une 2015. Geogr aphi ca P a n n o n i c a, 1 9 ( 2 ), 7 3 – 8 7 . h t t p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 9 3 7 / GeoPan1502073J
21. Josephson, A., & Michler, J. D. (2018). Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics. Food Policy, 79, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.001
22. Manca, A., Moher, D., Cugusi, L., Dvir, Z., & Deriu, F. (2018). How predatory journals leak int o PubMed. Canadi an Medi cal Association Journal, 190(35), E1042–E1045. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.180154
23. McLeod, A., Savage, A., & Simkin, M. G. (2018). The ethics of predatory journals. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3419-9
24. Mercier, E., Tardif, P. A., Moore, L., Le Sage, N., & Cameron, P. A. (2018). Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: A 12-month early-career researcher experience. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 94(1108), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135097
25. Mukherjee, B. (2018). Measuring scientific value of Indian journals beyond impact factor: a case with physics-chemistry-biology journals. Current Science, 114(8), 1613–1623. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i08/1613-1623
26. Oermann, M. H., Conklin, J. L., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Edie, A. H., … Budinger, S. C. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(6), 624–632.
27. Onder, C., & Erdil, S. E. (2017). Opportunities and opportunism: Publication outlet selection under pressure to increase research productivity. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx006
28. Perlin, M. S., Imasato, T., & Borenstein, D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, 116(1), 255–273.
29. Samal, J., & Dehury, R. K. (2017). The need and importance of incorporating academic research results into the curricula of Ayurveda in India. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11( 6), KA01–KA03. ht t ps: / / doi. or g/10. 7860/j cdr / 2017/ 26742.10112
30. Seethapathy, G. S., Kumar, J. U. S., & Hareesha, A. S. (2016). India’s scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Current Science, 111(11), 1759–1764. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v111/i11/1759-1764
31. Shaghaei, N., Wien, C., Holck, J., Thiesen, A. L., Ellegaard, O., Vlachos, E., & Drachen, T. (2018). Being a deliberate prey of a predator: Researchers’ thoughts after having published in predatory journal. Liber Quarterly, 28(1).
32. Shahri, M. A., Jazi, M. D., Borchardt, G., & Dadkhah, M. (2018). Detecting hijacked journals by using classification algorithms. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9914-2
33. Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.
34. Sīle, L. (2019). Entanglement of bibliographic database content and data collection practices: Rethinking data integration using findings from a European study. Procedia Computer Science, 146, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.094
35. Sīle, L., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Guns, R., Engels, T. C. E., Arefiev, P., … Teitelbaum, R. (2018). Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy016
36. Strielkowski, W., Gryshova, I., & Shcherbata, M. (2017). Predatory publishing and Beall’s list: lessons for the countries adapting novel research evaluation criteria. Science and Education, 8, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2017-8-5
37. Stri nzel, M., Severi n, A., Mi l zow, K., & Egger, M. ( 2019) . “Blacklists” and “whitelists” to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sect i onal compari son and t hemati c anal ysi s. PeerJ Preprints.
38. Testa, J. (n.d.). Journal selection process. Retrieved from https://clar-ivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/journal-selection-process/
39. van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
40. Vershinina, S., Tarasova, O., & Strielkowski, W. (2017). Academic publishing, journal rankings, and scientific productivity. Terra Economicus, 15(4), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2017-15-4-127-135
41. Yessirkepov, M., Nurmashev, B., & Anartayeva, M. (2015). A Scopus-based analysis of publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(12), 1915–1919. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.12.1915