IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i6d10.1007_s11192-021-03899-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level

Author

Listed:
  • Tatiana Marina

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics
    Russian Foundation for Basic Research)

  • Ivan Sterligov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

We present results of a large-scale study of potentially predatory journals (PPJ) represented in the Scopus database, which is widely used for research evaluation. Both journal metrics and country/disciplinary data have been evaluated for different groups of PPJ: those listed by Jeffrey Beall and those discontinued by Scopus because of “publication concerns”. Our results show that even after years of discontinuing, hundreds of active potentially predatory journals are still highly visible in the Scopus database. PPJ papers are continuously produced by all major countries, but with different prevalence. Most all science journal classification subject areas are affected. The largest number of PPJ papers are in engineering and medicine. On average, PPJ have much lower citation metrics than other Scopus-indexed journals. We conclude with a survey of the case of Russia and Kazakhstan where the share of PPJ papers in 2016 amounted to almost a half of all Kazakhstan papers in Scopus. Our data suggest a relation between PPJ prevalence and national research evaluation policies. As such policies become more widespread, the expansion of potentially predatory journal research will be increasingly important.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5019-5077, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03899-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03899-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03899-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-03899-x?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. 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.
    2. Henk F. Moed & Valentina Markusova & Mark Akoev, 2018. "Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1153-1180, August.
    3. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    4. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    5. Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2012. "A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 674-688.
    6. Moed, Henk F. & Bar-Ilan, Judit & Halevi, Gali, 2016. "A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 533-551.
    7. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    8. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    9. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S., 2013. "Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 272-285.
    10. Peter Weingart, 2005. "Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 117-131, January.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    12. Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato, 2015. "Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers," Nature, Nature, vol. 526(7575), pages 613-613, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Aleskerov, F. & Kazachinskaya, A. & Karabekyan, D. & Semina, A. & Yakuba, V., 2021. "Economic journals of Russia, their characteristics and network analysis," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 170-182.
    3. Denis Kosyakov & Andrey Guskov, 2022. "Reasons and consequences of changes in Russian research assessment policies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4609-4630, August.
    4. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.

    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. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    2. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    3. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    4. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    6. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Assessing the publication impact using citation data from both Scopus and WoS databases: an approach validated in 15 research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 909-924, November.
    7. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    8. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    9. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    10. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    11. 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.
    12. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    13. Zhang, Fang & Wu, Shengli, 2020. "Predicting future influence of papers, researchers, and venues in a dynamic academic network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    14. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Myroslava Hladchenko, 2023. "Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4589-4609, August.
    15. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    16. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 325-334, January.
    18. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    19. Sven E. Hug & Martin P. Brändle, 2017. "The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1551-1571, December.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03899-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.