Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator – Researchers’ Thoughts after having Published in a Predatory Journal

Q2 Social Sciences LIBER Quarterly Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.18352/LQ.10259
Najmeh Shaghaei, C. Wien, J. P. Holck, A. L. Thiesen, O. Ellegaard, Evgenios Vlachos, T. Drachen
{"title":"Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator – Researchers’ Thoughts after having Published in a Predatory Journal","authors":"Najmeh Shaghaei, C. Wien, J. P. Holck, A. L. Thiesen, O. Ellegaard, Evgenios Vlachos, T. Drachen","doi":"10.18352/LQ.10259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central question concerning scientific publishing is how researchers select journals to which they submit their work, since the choice of publication channel can make or break researchers. The gold-digger mentality developed by some publishers created the so-called predatory journals that accept manuscripts for a fee with little peer review. The literature claims that mainly researchers from low-ranked universities in developing countries publish in predatory journals. We decided to challenge this claim using the University of Southern Denmark as a case. We ran the Beall’s List against our research registration database and identified 31 possibly predatory publications from a set of 6,851 publications within 2015-2016. A qualitative research interview revealed that experienced researchers from the developed world publish in predatory journals mainly for the same reasons as do researchers from developing countries: lack of awareness, speed and ease of the publication process, and a chance to get elsewhere rejected work published. However, our findings indicate that the Open Access potential and a larger readership outreach were also motives for publishing in open access journals with quick acceptance rates.","PeriodicalId":39179,"journal":{"name":"LIBER Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LIBER Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/LQ.10259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

A central question concerning scientific publishing is how researchers select journals to which they submit their work, since the choice of publication channel can make or break researchers. The gold-digger mentality developed by some publishers created the so-called predatory journals that accept manuscripts for a fee with little peer review. The literature claims that mainly researchers from low-ranked universities in developing countries publish in predatory journals. We decided to challenge this claim using the University of Southern Denmark as a case. We ran the Beall’s List against our research registration database and identified 31 possibly predatory publications from a set of 6,851 publications within 2015-2016. A qualitative research interview revealed that experienced researchers from the developed world publish in predatory journals mainly for the same reasons as do researchers from developing countries: lack of awareness, speed and ease of the publication process, and a chance to get elsewhere rejected work published. However, our findings indicate that the Open Access potential and a larger readership outreach were also motives for publishing in open access journals with quick acceptance rates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成为捕食者故意的猎物——研究人员在食肉杂志上发表文章后的想法
关于科学出版的一个核心问题是研究人员如何选择他们提交工作的期刊,因为发表渠道的选择可以成就或毁灭研究人员。一些出版商的拜金心态催生了所谓的掠夺性期刊,这些期刊收取稿费,几乎没有同行评议。这些文献声称,主要是来自发展中国家排名较低的大学的研究人员在掠夺性期刊上发表文章。我们决定以南丹麦大学为例对这一说法提出质疑。我们将Beall 's List与我们的研究注册数据库进行了比对,并从2015-2016年的6851份出版物中确定了31份可能具有掠夺性的出版物。一项定性研究访谈显示,来自发达国家的有经验的科学家在掠夺性期刊上发表论文的主要原因与来自发展中国家的科学家相同:缺乏意识、发表过程的速度和便利性,以及有机会在其他地方发表被拒绝的论文。然而,我们的研究结果表明,开放获取的潜力和更大的读者范围也是在开放获取期刊上发表论文的动机,这些期刊的接受率很快。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
LIBER Quarterly
LIBER Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Nitpicking online knowledge representations of governmental leadership. The case of Belgian prime ministers in Wikipedia and Wikidata. Applied and conceptual approaches to evidence-based practice in research and academic libraries Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities Patterns for searching data on the web across different research communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1