Engaging in predatory practicesHow editors persuade prospective authors

Referencias bibliográficas

• Alghazo, Sharif, Salem, Mohd Nour Al- and Alrashdan, Imran (2021). Stance and engagement in English and Arabic research article abstracts. System 103, 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102681
• Beall, Jeffrey (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature489(7415), 179. Beall, Jeffrey (2013). Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery2(2), 47–49.
• Beall, Jeffrey (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. URL: https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
• Beall, Jeffrey (2016). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean med Sci31, 1511–1513. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
• Beall, Jeffrey (2017). Beall’s list of predatory open access publishers 2017. URL: https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/
• Bloch, Joel (2021). Creating Digital Literacy Spaces for Multilingual Writers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/BLOCH0794
• Bocanegra-Valle, Ana (2020).Researching academic genres, language and discourse with computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. In María Luisa Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Corpus Analysis in different genres: Academic discourse and learner corpora (pp. 146–166). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815905
• Bocanegra-Valle, Ana(2023). Predatory journals: A potential threat to the dissemination of open access knowledge. In Ramón Plo Alastrué and Isabel Corona Marzol (Eds.), Digital Scientific Communication: Identity and Visibility in Research Dissemination. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa (2019). Authorial engagement in business emails. A cross-cultural analysis of attitude and engagement markers. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.06sal
• Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa and Muñiz Calderón, Ruth (2015). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse features in business e-mails written by non-native speakers of English. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences 173, 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.055
• Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes 63, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003
• Elmore, Susan A. and Weston, Eleanor H. (2020). Predatory journals: What they are and how to avoid them. Toxicol Pathol48(4), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320920209
• Fazel, Ismaeil and Hartse, Joel Heng (2018). Reconsidering ‘predatory’ open access journals in an age of globalised English-language academic publishing. In Mary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis (Eds.), Global Academic Publishing. Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies (pp. 200–213). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/CURRY9238
• Fazel, Ismaeil and Hartse, Joel Heng (2020). Gray areas of academic publishing. ‘Predatory journals’ under the lens. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes1(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.20008.faz
• Forero, Diego A., Oermann, Marilyn H., Manca, Andrea, Deriu, Franca, Mendieta-Zerón, Hugo, Dadkhah, Mehdi, Bhad, Roshan, Deshpande, Smita N., Wang, Wei and Cifuentes, Myriam Patricia (2018). Negative effects of “predatory” journals on global health research. Annals of Global Health84(4), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2389
• Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, Yessirkepov, Marlen, Diyanova, Svetlana N. and Kitas, George D. (2015). Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci, 30, 1010–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010
• Grudniewicz, Agnes, Moher, David, Cobey, Kelly D., Bryson, Gregory L., Cukier, Samantha, Allen, Kristiann, Ardern, Clare, Balcom, Lesley, Barros, Tiago, Berger, Monica, Ciro, Jairo Buitrago and Cugusi, Lucia (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature576, 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
• Habibzadeh, Farrokh and Simundic, Ana-Maria (2017). Predatory journals and their effects on scientific research community. Biochemia Medica 27(2), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.028
• Hyland, Ken (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23(2), 215–239.
• Hyland, Ken (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text & Talk 22(4), 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021
• Hyland, Ken (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
• Hyland, Ken (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Hyland, Ken (2010a). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2), 125–143. http://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220
• Hyland, Ken (2010b). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. English for Academic Purposes 9(2): 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
• Hyland, Ken (2019a). Metadiscourse. Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury.Hyland, Ken (2019b). Foreword. Bringing in the reader. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp. xi–xiv) Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.02jia
• Jiang, Feng (Kevin) and Ma, Xiaohao (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
• Jiang, Feng (Kevin) and Ma, Xiaohao (2019). Positioning and proximity of reader engagement. Authorial identity in professional and apprentice academic genres. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres(pp. 29–46) Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.02jia
• Kramar, Natalia (2019). Engagement markers in the Feynman lectures on physics. Applying Hyland’s interaction framework to spoken academic discourse. Advanced Education12, 127–133.
• Kurt, Serhat (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing31, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150Lafuente-Millán, Enrique (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019
• McGrath, Lisa and Kuteeva, Maria (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
• Memon, Aamir Raoof (2019). Revisiting the term predatory open access publishing. J Korean Med Sci34(13), e99. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99
• Mur-Dueñas, Pilar (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(1): 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x
• Mur-Dueñas, Pilar (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3068–3079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
• Oermann, Marilyn H., Nicoll, Leslie H., Chinn, Peggy L., Ashton, Kathleen S., Conklin, Jamie L., Edie, Alison H., Amarasekara, Sathya and Williams, Brittany L. (2018). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook66(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005
• Orpin, Deborah (2019). #Vaccines work. Recontextualizing the content of epidemiology reports on Twitter. In María José Luzón and Carmen Pérez-Llantada (Eds.), Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres (pp. 173–194). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.09orp
• Pascual, Daniel and Mur-Dueñas, Pilar (2022). Dialogic interaction with diversified audiences in Twitter for research dissemination purposes. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 90, 61–79. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/clac.81307
• Pecorari, Diane (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? Journal of Academic Ethics19, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4
• Pflugfelder, Ehren Helmut (2022). Evidence engines: Common rhetorical features of fraudulent academic articles. Written Communication39(2), 303331. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069332
• Qin, Wenjuan and Uccelli, Paola (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
• Qiu, Xuyan and Jiang, Feng (Kevin) (2021). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51, 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
• Rele, Shilpa, Kennedy, Marie and Blas, Nataly (2017). Journal evaluation tool. LMU Librarian Publications & Presentations40. URL: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/40
• Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth and Carter-Thomas, Shirley (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(1), 45–70. https://orcid.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00080.x
• Sala, Michelle (2019). Interrogative engagement as a pragmatic and textual function in Legal Studies. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp. 101–117). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.06sal
• Salager-Meyer, Françoise (2012). The open access movement or ‘edemocracy’: Its birth, rise, problems and solutions. Ibérica24, 55–74.
• Sancho Guinda, Carmen (2012). Proximal positioning in students’ graph commentaries. In Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 166–183). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sancho Guinda, Carmen (Ed.) (2019). Engagement in professional genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/pbns.301
• Shamseer, Larissa, Moher, David, Maduekwe, Onyi, Turner, Lucy, Barbour, Virginia, Burch, Rebecca, Clark, Jocalyn, Galipeau, James, Roberts, Jason and Shea, Beverley J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine15(28), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
• Soler, Josep and Cooper, Andrew (2019). Unexpected emails to submit your work: Spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers. Publications7(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010007
• Soler, Josep and Wang, Ying (2019). Linguistic differences between well-established and predatory journals: A keyword analysis of two journals in political science. Learned Publishing32(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1244
• Suau-Jiménez, Francisca (2019). Engagement of readers/customers in the discourse of e-tourism promotional genres. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp. 341–358) Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.18sua
• Valeiras-Jurado, Julia, Ruiz-Madrid, Noelia and Jacobs, Geert (2018). Revisiting persuasion in oral academic and professional genres: Towards a methodological framework for Multimodal Discourse Analysis of research dissemination talks. Ibérica 35, 93–118
• Xia, Sichen Ada and Hafner, Cristoph A. (2021). Engaging the online audience in the digital era: A multimodal analysis of engagement strategies in TED talk videos. Ibérica 42, 33–58. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3702-6733
• Xia, Jingfeng, Harmon, Jennifer L., Connolly, Kevin G., Donnelly, Ryan M., Anderson Mary R. and Howard, Heather A., (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(7), 1406–1417. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265
• Xu, Xiaoyu and Nesi, Hilary (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003
• Zou, Hang (Joanna) and Hyland, Ken (2020). ‘Think about how fascinating this is’: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 43, 100809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100809