The Predatory Journal: Victimizer or Victim?

Informing Science Pub Date : 2021-06-18 DOI:10.28945/4788
T. Gill
{"title":"The Predatory Journal: Victimizer or Victim?","authors":"T. Gill","doi":"10.28945/4788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: Labeling a journal as “predatory” can do great damage to the journal and the individuals that have contributed to it. This paper considers whether the predatory classification has outlived its usefulness and what might replace it.\n\nBackground: With the advent of open access publishing, the term “predatory” has increasingly been used to identify academic journals, conferences, and publishers whose practices are driven by profit or self-interest rather than the advancement of science. Absent clear standards for determining what is predatory and what is not, concerns have been raised about the misuse of the label.\n\nMethodology: Mixed methods: A brief review of the literature, some illustrative case studies, and conceptual analysis.\n\nContribution: The paper provides recommendations for reducing the impact of illegitimate journals.\n\nFindings: Current predatory classifications are being assigned with little or no systematic research and virtually no accountability. The predatory/not predatory distinction does not accommodate alternative journal missions.\n\nRecommendations for Researchers: The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate journals requires consideration of each journal’s mission. To serve as a useful guide, a process akin to that used for accrediting institutions needs to be put in place.\n\nImpact on Society: Avoiding unnecessary damage to the careers of researchers starting out.\n\nFuture Research: Refining the initial classification scheme proposed in the paper. \n\nNOTE: This Proceedings paper was revised and published in Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 24, 51-82. Click DOWNLOAD PDF to download the published paper.","PeriodicalId":39754,"journal":{"name":"Informing Science","volume":"14 1","pages":"51-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informing Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: Labeling a journal as “predatory” can do great damage to the journal and the individuals that have contributed to it. This paper considers whether the predatory classification has outlived its usefulness and what might replace it. Background: With the advent of open access publishing, the term “predatory” has increasingly been used to identify academic journals, conferences, and publishers whose practices are driven by profit or self-interest rather than the advancement of science. Absent clear standards for determining what is predatory and what is not, concerns have been raised about the misuse of the label. Methodology: Mixed methods: A brief review of the literature, some illustrative case studies, and conceptual analysis. Contribution: The paper provides recommendations for reducing the impact of illegitimate journals. Findings: Current predatory classifications are being assigned with little or no systematic research and virtually no accountability. The predatory/not predatory distinction does not accommodate alternative journal missions. Recommendations for Researchers: The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate journals requires consideration of each journal’s mission. To serve as a useful guide, a process akin to that used for accrediting institutions needs to be put in place. Impact on Society: Avoiding unnecessary damage to the careers of researchers starting out. Future Research: Refining the initial classification scheme proposed in the paper. NOTE: This Proceedings paper was revised and published in Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 24, 51-82. Click DOWNLOAD PDF to download the published paper.
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
掠夺性期刊:加害者还是受害者?
目的/目的:给期刊贴上“掠夺性”的标签会对期刊和为其做出贡献的个人造成极大的伤害。本文考虑了掠食性分类是否已经失去了它的用处,以及什么可能取代它。背景:随着开放获取出版的出现,“掠夺性”一词越来越多地用于识别学术期刊、会议和出版商,他们的行为是由利润或自身利益驱动的,而不是科学的进步。由于没有明确的标准来确定什么是掠夺性的,什么不是,人们对滥用这个标签感到担忧。方法:混合方法:简要回顾文献,一些说明性案例研究和概念分析。贡献:本文提供了减少非法期刊影响的建议。研究结果:目前的掠夺性分类很少或根本没有系统的研究,几乎没有问责制。掠夺性/非掠夺性的区别并不适用于其他期刊任务。给研究人员的建议:区分合法和非法期刊需要考虑每个期刊的使命。为了提供有用的指导,需要建立一个类似于对机构进行认证的程序。对社会的影响:避免对研究人员的职业生涯造成不必要的损害。未来研究:完善本文提出的初始分类方案。注:这篇论文已被修改并发表在《信息科学:新兴跨学科的国际期刊》,24,51-82。点击下载PDF下载已发表的论文。
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
Informing Science
Informing Science Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The academically peer refereed journal Informing Science endeavors to provide an understanding of the complexities in informing clientele. Fields from information systems, library science, journalism in all its forms to education all contribute to this science. These fields, which developed independently and have been researched in separate disciplines, are evolving to form a new transdiscipline, Informing Science.
期刊最新文献
The Intricate Pathways From Empowering Leadership to Burnout: A Deep Dive Into Interpersonal Conflicts, Work-Home Interactions, and Supportive Colleagues Applied Psychology and Informing Science: Introduction to the Developing Special Series Embitterment in the Workplace: How Does It Associate with Burnout and What Triggers It? The Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Job Motivation, Affective and Normative Commitment Development and Validation of a Noise in Decision Inventory for Organizational Settings
×
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