IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/71920.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economists behaving badly: Publications in predatory journals

Author

Listed:
  • Wallace, Frederick
  • Perri, Timothy

Abstract

The extent of publishing in predatory journals in economics is examined in this paper. A simple model of researcher behavior is presented to explore those factors motivating an economist or other academic to publish in predatory journals as defined by Beall (2015). Beall’s lists are then employed to identify predatory journals and publishers included in the Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) archives. Once identified, the affiliations of authors publishing in these outlets are determined in order to identify the characteristics of those publishing in such outlets. The geographic dispersion of authorship is widespread. A very small subset of authors is registered on RePEc. Slightly more than forty percent of registered authors who publish in predatory journals in the data set have six or fewer publications, and hence might be considered inexperienced. A surprising number of authors who are in the RePEc top 5% also published in predatory journals in 2015.

Suggested Citation

  • Wallace, Frederick & Perri, Timothy, 2016. "Economists behaving badly: Publications in predatory journals," MPRA Paper 71920, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:71920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/71920/1/MPRA_paper_71920.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73075/1/MPRA_paper_73075.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Daniel Graziotin & Xiaofeng Wang & Pekka Abrahamsson, 2014. "A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1627-1656, December.
    3. Christian Zimmermann, 2013. "Academic Rankings with RePEc," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-32, December.
    4. Jevin D. West & Theodore Bergstrom & Carl T. Bergstrom, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness Of Open Access Publications," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1315-1321, October.
    5. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2013. "Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 144-161, March.
    6. Jingfeng Xia & Jennifer L. Harmon & Kevin G. Connolly & Ryan M. Donnelly & Mary R. Anderson & Heather A. Howard, 2015. "Who publishes in “predatory” journals?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1406-1417, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. A new paper on predatory journals in economics #RePEc
      by John Whitehead in Environmental Economics on 2016-09-07 17:32:31
    2. "Even top economists publish in predatory journals, study finds" #RePEc
      by John Whitehead in Environmental Economics on 2016-10-27 19:52:09

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kyle Siler, 2020. "Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1386-1401, November.
    2. Salim Moussa, 2021. "Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 485-506, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi, 2020. "Can we automate expert-based journal rankings? Analysis of the Finnish publication indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    5. Joshua Eykens & Raf Guns & A I M Jakaria Rahman & Tim C E Engels, 2019. "Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Marcelo S. Perlin & Takeyoshi Imasato & Denis Borenstein, 2018. "Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 255-273, July.
    7. Balatskiy, E. & Yurevich, M., 2021. "Russian economic science on the international market of "predatory" publications," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 190-198.
    8. Panagiotis Tsigaris & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2020. "Reproducibility issues with correlating Beall-listed publications and research awards at a small Canadian business school," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 143-157, April.
    9. Zahid Halim & Shafaq Khan, 2019. "A data science-based framework to categorize academic journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 393-423, April.
    10. Andrew Kerr & Phillip de Jager, 2021. "A Description of Predatory Publishing in South African Economics Departments," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 89(3), pages 439-456, September.

    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. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    2. Klaus Wohlrabe & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Alphabetized co-authorship in economics reconsidered," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2173-2193, May.
    3. Katharina Rath & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2016. "Trends in economics publications represented by JEL categories between 2007 and 2013," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 660-663, June.
    4. Püttmann, Vitus & Thomsen, Stephan L. & Trunzer, Johannes, 2020. "Zur Relevanz von Ausstattungsunterschieden für Forschungsleistungsvergleiche: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Deutschland," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-679, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Mar 2021.
    5. María Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2020. "Differences In Citation Patterns Across Journal Tiers: The Case Of Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1217-1232, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Demir, Selcuk Besir, 2018. "Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1296-1311.
    8. Constantin Bürgi & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2021. "Working Papers, Journal Articles, and Citations: An Empirical Analysis for the Top Five Journals in Economics," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 74(02), pages 51-54, February.
    9. Vera Sommer & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2017. "Citations, journal ranking and multiple authorships reconsidered: evidence from almost one million articles," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(11), pages 809-814, June.
    10. Tove Faber Frandsen, 2017. "Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1513-1528, December.
    11. Alexandra Baumann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2020. "Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2433-2441, September.
    12. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    13. Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2016. "Quantifying The Life Cycle Of Scholarly Articles Across Fields Of Economic Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1339-1355, April.
    14. Bo-Christer Björk & Sari Kanto-Karvonen & J. Tuomas Harviainen, 2020. "How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-12, March.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Butz & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2018. "What are the top five journals in economics? A new meta-ranking," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 659-675, February.
    16. Joseph Gerald Hirschberg & Jeanette Ngaire Lye, 2020. "Grading Journals In Economics: The Abcs Of The Abdc," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 876-921, September.
    17. María Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2018. "Differences in citation patterns across journal tiers in economics," Documentos de Trabajo 16701, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA).
    18. Payson Steven, 2019. "Cite This Economics Paper! It Is Time for the House of Cards to Fall Down," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Katharina Rath & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2015. "Co-authorship in Economics," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 68(16), pages 51-53, August.
    20. Sultan Orazbayev, 2017. "Diversity and collaboration in Economics," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2017-4, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Predatory Publications; RePEc;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pra:mprapa:71920. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.