Keywords
Beall’s list
Cabell’s list
citation analysis
citation patterns
How to Cite
Number of views: 856
Number of downloads: 777
Abstract
One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth, in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it is demonstrated that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals.
Funding
Narodowe Centrum Nauki
References
Anderson, R. (2017, lipiec). Cabell’s New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review. Scholarly Kitchen. <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklistreview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Scholarly-Kitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>.
Anderson, R. (2019). Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scientific Literature—The Scholarly Kitchen. Scholarly Kitchen. <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/10/28/citation-contamination-references-to-predatory-journals-in-the-legitimate-scientific-literature/>.
Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy 48(2): 462–477. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489(7415): 179–179. doi:10.1038/489179a
Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC 11(2): 589–597.
Bivens-Tatum, W. (2014). Reactionary rhetoric against open access publishing. TripleC 12(2): 441–446. doi:10.31269/triplec.v12i2.617
Björk, B.-C., Kanto-Karvonen, S., & Harviainen, J. T. (2020). How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited. Publications 8(2): 17. doi:10.3390/publications8020017
Błocki, Z. (2018, wrzesień 18). List dyrektora NCN ws. „drapieżnych czasopism”. <https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/2018_09_18_list_dyrektora_ncn_ws_predatory_journals.pdf>.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Cabells. (2021). Get a quote. <https://www2.cabells.com/get-quote>.
Cano, V. (1989). Citation behavior: classification, utility, and location. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(4): 284–290.
Clarivate Analytics. (2012). OECD Category Scheme. <http://help.prod-incites.com/inCites2Live/filterValuesGroup/researchAreaSchema/oecdCategoryScheme.html>.
Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 7, 1001. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15256.1
Demir, S.B. (2018a). Scholarly databases under scrutiny. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 096100061878415. doi:10.1177/0961000618784159
Demir, S.B. (2018b). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics 12(4): 1296–1311. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008
Else, H. (2019). Impact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations. Nature d41586-019-01151–01154. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01151-4
Eykens, J., Guns, R., Rahman, A.I.M.J., Engels, T.C.E. (2019). Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding. PLOS ONE, 14(11): e0224541. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224541
Frandsen, T.F. (2017). Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics 113(3): 1513–1528. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x
Frandsen, T.F. (2019). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature: why authors publish in questionable journals. Learned Publishing 32(1): 57–62. doi:10.1002/leap.1214
González-Sala, F., Osca-Lluch, J., Haba-Osca, J. (2019). Are journal and author self-citations a visibility strategy? Scientometrics 119(3): 1345–1364. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03101-3
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K.D., Bryson, G.L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J.B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M.R., Egger, M., Graham, I.D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K.M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., … Lalu, M.M. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576(7786): 210–212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
Gumpenberger, C., Sorz, J., Wieland, M., Gorraiz, J. (2014). Humanities in the bibliometric spotlight – Research output analysis at the University of Vienna and considerations for increasing visibility, [w:] E. Noyons (ed.), Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden „Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big and Little Data”. Universiteit Leiden: 216–225.
Haustein, S. (2012). Multidimensional Journal Evaluation: Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor. De Gruyter Saur.
Houghton, F. (2017). Ethics in academic publishing: A timely reminder. Journal of the Medical Library Association 105(3): 282–284. doi:10.5195/JMLA.2017.122
Krawczyk, F., Kulczycki, E. (2020). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 102271. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
Kulczycki, E. (2017). Kariera drapieżnych czasopism – przypadek Anny O. Szust. Nauka 3: 71–83.
Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Comins, J.A., Milojević, S. (2016). Citations: indicators of quality? The Impact Fallacy. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 1. doi:10.3389/frma.2016.00001
Macháček, V., Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4
McCook, A. (2017, listopad 27). Make reviews public, says peer review expert. Retraction Watch. <https://retractionwatch.com/2017/11/27/make-reviews-public-says-peer-review-expert/>.
Moussa, S. (2020). Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03729-6
Norman, E.R. (2012). Maximizing journal article citation online: readers, robots, and research visibility. Politics & Policy 40(1). doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00342.x
Norman, E.R. (2013). Maximizing research visibility, impact, and citation: tips for editors and authors. W Science Editors’ Handbook (2nd edn., 224–227). European Association of Science Editors.
Nwagwu, W.E., Ojemeni, O. (2015). Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: a bibiliometric study. Learned Publishing 28(1): 23–34. doi:10.1087/20150105
Oermann, M.H., Nicoll, L.H., Ashton, K.S., Edie, A.H., Amarasekara, S., Chinn, P.L., Carter-Templeton, H., Ledbetter, L.S. (2020). Analysis of citation patterns and impact of predatory sources in the nursing literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 52(3): 311–319. doi:10.1111/jnu.12557
Oermann, M.H., Nicoll, L.H., Carter-Templeton, H., Woodward, A., Kidayi, P.L., Neal, L.B., Edie, A.H., Ashton, K.S., Chinn, P.L., Amarasekara, S. (2019). Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook 67(6): 664–670. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2019.05.001
Olivarez, J., Bales, S., Sare, L., van Duinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries 79(1): 52–67. doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.52
Oppenheim, C. (1996). Do citations count? Citation indexing and the research assessment exercise (RAE). Serials 9(2): 155–161.
Organizacji Współpracy Gospodarczej i Rozwoju (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2006)19/FINAL. <http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf>.
Schlegel, F. (ed.) (2015). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO Publ.
Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Egger, M., Domingo, M., Barros, T. (2020). Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics [Preprint]. Scientific Communication and Education. doi:10.1101/2020.03.09.983155
Shen, C., Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13(1): 230–230. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71(11): 1386–1401. doi:10.1002/asi.24339
Simkin, M., Roychowdhury, V. (2015). Do you sincerely want to be cited? Or: read before you cite, [w:] B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (eds.), Scholarly Metrics under the Microscope: From Citation Analysis to Academic Auditing (s. 203–210). Information Today. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00202.x
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: analysis of Beall’s list. El Profesional de La Información 25(5): 730–737. doi:10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03
Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature 543(7646): 481–483. doi:10.1038/543481a
Stöckelová, T., Vostal, F. (2017): Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: when highs and lows of publication cultures meet. Aslib Journal of Information Management 69(5): 516–528. doi:10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013
Taşkın, Z., Al, U. (2018). A content-based citation analysis study based on text categorization. Scientometrics 114(1): 335–357. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2560-2
License
Copyright (c) 2021 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.