Predatory Journals: A Potential Threat to the Dissemination of Open Access Knowledge

  1. Bocanegra-Valle, Ana
Libro:
Digital Scientific Communication

ISBN: 9783031382062,  9783031382079

Año de publicación: 2023

Páginas: 127-148

Tipo: Capítulo de Libro

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-38207-9_6 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Resumen

Using qualitative analytical methods and a corpus of 50 unsolicited email messages sent by predatory publishers and collected over two years, this study sets out to investigate the main themes that prevail in predatory publishing to generate interest and convince authors to submit their work. It also critically assesses deceptive editorial practices that may flout mainstream academic publication standards and put the quality of scientific research and the advantages of publishing open access at stake. The dataset was iteratively coded and qualitatively analysed by means of NVivo 11 Pro. Findings show that predatory discourse overuses boastful language and relies on self-promotional explicit references to high quality in order to persuade authors and achieve their predatory aims. The last section discusses the implications of predatory journals for the dissemination of non-validated knowledge, the spread of misconduct and misdirection, and the impact on scholars aiming for visibility in a global academia.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179.
  • Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage—Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2(2), 47–49.
  • Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
  • Beall, J. (2016). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31, 1511–1513. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
  • Beall, J. (2017). Beall’s list of predatory open access publishers 2017. https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/
  • Bloch, J. (2021). Creating digital literacy spaces for multilingual writers. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/BLOCH0794
  • Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2017). How credible are open access emerging journals? A situational analysis in the humanities. In M. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp. 121–149). University of Adelaide Press.
  • Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2019). Building a reputation in global scientific communication: A SWOT analysis of Spanish humanities journals. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28935
  • Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2020). Researching academic genres, language and discourse with computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Corpus analysis in different genres: Academic discourse and learner corpora (pp. 146–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815905
  • Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2023). Engaging in predatory practices: How editors persuade prospective authors. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 93, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.82441
  • Byard, R. W. (2016). The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 12, 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9771-3
  • Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research, 7, 1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
  • Collyer, F. M. (2016). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global north, global south. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020
  • Elmore, S. A., & Weston, E. H. (2020). Predatory journals: What they are and how to avoid them. Toxicologic Pathology, 48(4), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320920209
  • Fazel, I., & Hartse, J. H. (2018). Reconsidering ‘predatory’ open access journals in an age of globalised English-language academic publishing. In M. J. Curry & T. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing. Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 200–213). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/CURRY9238
  • Fazel, I., & Hartse, J. H. (2020). Gray areas of academic publishing. ‘Predatory journals’ under the lens. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 1(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.20008.faz
  • Ferris, L. E., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030
  • Forero, D. A., Oermann, M. H., Manca, A., Deriu, F., Mendieta-Zerón, H., Dadkhah, M., Deshpande, S. N., Wang, W., & Cifuentes, M. P. (2018). Negative effects of “predatory” journals on global health research. Annals of Global Health, 84(4), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2389
  • Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Diyanova, S. N., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30, 1010–1016. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010
  • Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
  • Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031
  • Memon, A. R. (2019). Revisiting the term predatory open access publishing. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 34(13), e99. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99
  • Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2020). Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325
  • Pecorari, D. (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? Journal of Academic Ethics, 19, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4
  • Pflugfelder, E. H. (2022). Evidence engines: Common rhetorical features of fraudulent academic articles. Written Communication, 39(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069332
  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., Galipeau, J., Roberts, J., & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(28), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
  • Soler, J., & Cooper, A. (2019). Unexpected emails to submit your work: Spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers. Publications, 7(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010007
  • Soler, J., & Wang, Y. (2019). Linguistic differences between well-established and predatory journals: A keyword analysis of two journals in political science. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1244
  • Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265