No abstract

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable 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 lists of questionable journals (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called 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 questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.

This study uses content-based citation analysis to move beyond the simplified classification of predatory journals. We present that, when we analyze papers not only in terms of the quantity of their citations but also the content of these citations, we are able to show the various roles played by papers published in journals accused of being predatory. To accomplish this, we analyzed the content of 9,995 citances (i.e., citation sentences) from 6,706 papers indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, which cites papers published in so-called “predatory” (or questionable) journals. The analysis revealed that the vast majority of such citances are neutral (97.3%), and negative citations of articles published in the analyzed journals are almost completely nonexistent (0.8%). Moreover, the analysis revealed that the most frequently mentioned countries in the citances are India, Pakistan, and Iran, with mentions of Western countries being rare. This highlights a geopolitical bias and shows the usefulness of looking at such journals as mislocated centers of scholarly communication. The analyzed journals provide regional data prevalent for mainstream scholarly discussions, and the idea of predatory publishing hides geopolitical inequalities in global scholarly publishing. Our findings also contribute to the further development of content-based citation analysis. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00242

This article discusses the use of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of individual academics. We focused on national indicators for the assessment of productivity in Polish higher education institutions. We analysed whether institutions (N = 768) adopted national templates for their own sets of criteria for intra-institutional evaluations. This study combined an analysis of internal policy documents with semistructured interviews with deans from institutions in different fields of science. Our findings showed that, despite their high levels of institutional autonomy, the majority of institutions adopted the national criteria for the evaluation of individual academics. This article concludes with recommendations for reducing the negative consequences of local use of national indicators for the assessment of researchers.

No abstract

This study uses content-based citation analysis to move beyond the simplified category of predatory (or questionable) journals. We present that when we analyze papers not only in terms of the number of their citations but also the content of these citations, we are able to show the much more complicated role of papers published in journals accused of being predatory. We analyzed the content of 9,995 citances from 6,706 papers indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, which cites papers published in so-called questionable journals. The analysis revealed that the vast majority of such citances are neutral (97.3%), and negative citations of articles from questionable journals are almost completely nonexistent (0.8%). Moreover, the analysis revealed that the most frequently mentioned countries in the citances are India, Pakistan, and Iran, and mentions of Western countries are rare. This highlights geopolitical bias and shows the usefulness of looking at such journals as mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Apparently, the analyzed journals provide data needed in mainstream scholarly discussions, and the idea of predatory publishing hides geopolitical inequalities in global scholarly publishing. These findings also contribute to the further development of content-based citation analysis.

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.

No abstract