Drapieżne czasopisma są legitymizowane przez artykuły w czasopismach z impact factor

• Authors: Emanuel Kulczycki , Marek Hołowiecki , Zehra Taşkın , Franciszek Krawczyk

Title variants

EN

Predatory journals are legitimized by articles in impact-factor journals

Abstracts

EN

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.

PL

Jednym z problemów współczesnego środowiska akademickiego jest zrozumienie różnic pomiędzy uznanymi czasopismami naukowymi a tzw. czasopismami drapieżnymi. Podczas gdy osoby kształtujące politykę naukową i menedżerowie nauki uważają czasopisma indeksowane w popularnych indeksach cytowań, takich jak Web of Science czy Scopus, za rzetelne, to do identyfikacji drapieżnych czasopism używają dwóch czarnych list (tzw. lista Bealla i lista Cabell’s), z których jedna nie jest aktualizowana od kilku lat. Głównym celem naszego artykułu jest pokazanie, jak czasopisma uznane za rzetelne podnoszą widoczność artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach znajdujących się na czarnych listach. W tym celu przebadaliśmy 65 czasopism z nauk społecznych znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 2338 czasopism indeksowanych przez Web of Science, które cytowały te czasopisma. Przeanalizowaliśmy 3234 artykuły z czasopism znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 5964 artykuły (6750 cytowań) z czasopism indeksowanych w Web of Science. Nasze wyniki pokazują, że 13% artykułów z czarnych list było cytowanych przez czasopisma z Web of Science, a 37% cytowań pochodziło z czasopism z impact factor. Okazuje się, że nie ma istotnej zależności między impact factor a liczbą cytowań w czasopismach z czarnej listy, mimo że jest on jest wykorzystywany przez osoby kształtujące politykę naukową do określania poziomu czasopism. Z drugiej strony należy wziąć pod uwagę jako czynnik wyjaśniający kraj i praktyki autocytowania stosowane w czasopismach.

Keywords

EN

blacklisted journals; Beall’s list; Cabell’s list; citation analysis; citation patterns

PL

czasopisma drapieżne; analiza cytowań; lista Bealla; lista Cabell’s; wzory cytowań

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 83
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 59-82

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Emanuel Kulczycki

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

• https://orcid.org/0000000165303609

author

Marek Hołowiecki

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

• https://orcid.org/0000000182172815

author

Zehra Taşkın

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

• https://orcid.org/000000017102493X

author

Franciszek Krawczyk

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

• https://orcid.org/0000000310979032

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

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/rpeis.2021.83.2.5

Biblioteka Nauki

1368714