IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v16y2022i2s1751157722000463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia

Author

Listed:
  • You, Taekho
  • Park, Jinseo
  • Lee, June Young
  • Yun, Jinhyuk
  • Jung, Woo-Sung

Abstract

Questionable publications have been accused of “greedy” practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, i.e., journals and publishers, and prosumers, i.e., authors. Questionable publications attribute publisher-level self-citations to their journals while limiting journal-level self-citations; yet, conventional journal-level metrics are unable to detect these publisher-level self-citations. We propose a hybrid journal-publisher metric for detecting self-favouring citations among QJs from publishers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the questionable publications were less disruptive and influential than their counterparts. Our findings indicate an inflated citation impact of suspicious academic publishers. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy-making against questionable publications.

Suggested Citation

  • You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:2:s1751157722000463
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157722000463
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    2. Eva Lillquist & Sheldon Green, 2010. "The discipline dependence of citation statistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 749-762, September.
    3. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Gunther Eysenbach, 2006. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," Working Papers id:626, eSocialSciences.
    6. Manoj Mathew Lalu & Larissa Shamseer & Kelly D. Cobey & David Moher, 2017. "How stakeholders can respond to the rise of predatory journals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 852-855, December.
    7. Yangping Zhou, 2021. "Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6013-6040, July.
    8. Petersen, Alexander M. & Pan, Raj K. & Pammolli, Fabio & Fortunato, Santo, 2019. "Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1855-1865.
    9. James H. Fowler & Dag W. Aksnes, 2007. "Does self-citation pay?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 427-437, September.
    10. Salim Moussa, 2021. "Correction to: Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 507-507, January.
    11. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    12. Philip Darbyshire, 2018. "Fake news. Fake journals. Fake conferences. What we can do," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1727-1729, May.
    13. Emanuel Kulczycki & Marek Hołowiecki & Zehra Taşkın & Franciszek Krawczyk, 2021. "Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8541-8560, October.
    14. Salim Moussa, 2021. "Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 485-506, January.
    15. Demir, Selcuk Besir, 2018. "Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1296-1311.
    16. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck & Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2012. "Universality of citation distributions revisited," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(1), pages 72-77, January.
    17. Piotr Sorokowski & Emanuel Kulczycki & Agnieszka Sorokowska & Katarzyna Pisanski, 2017. "Predatory journals recruit fake editor," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7646), pages 481-483, March.
    18. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck & Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2012. "Universality of citation distributions revisited," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(1), pages 72-77, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emanuel Kulczycki & Marek Hołowiecki & Zehra Taşkın & Franciszek Krawczyk, 2021. "Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8541-8560, October.
    2. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    3. Wei Ming & Zhenyue Zhao, 2022. "Rethinking the open access citation advantage: Evidence from the “reverse‐flipping” journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(11), pages 1608-1620, November.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Briony Swire-Thompson & David Lazer, 2022. "Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 124-135, March.
    6. Zhihui Zhang & Ying Cheng & Nian Cai Liu, 2014. "Comparison of the effect of mean-based method and z-score for field normalization of citations at the level of Web of Science subject categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1679-1693, December.
    7. T. S. Evans & N. Hopkins & B. S. Kaube, 2012. "Universality of performance indicators based on citation and reference counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 473-495, November.
    8. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    9. Salim Moussa, 2021. "Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 485-506, January.
    10. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 173-181, July.
    12. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 270-290.
    13. Giancarlo Ruocco & Cinzia Daraio, 2013. "An empirical approach to compare the performance of heterogeneous academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 601-625, December.
    14. Hajar Sotudeh & Zahra Ghasempour & Maryam Yaghtin, 2015. "The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 581-608, August.
    15. Yu, Xiaoyao & Szymanski, Boleslaw K. & Jia, Tao, 2021. "Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    16. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    18. Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec, 2021. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1897-1921, March.
    19. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2018. "Individual and field citation distributions in 29 broad scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 868-892.
    20. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:2:s1751157722000463. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.