Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing

Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Performance Measurement and Metrics Emerald Publishing

Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/bibliometric-analysis-of-a-controversial-paper-on-predatory-publishing-AyVdgilEff
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1467-8047
DOI
10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

Journal

Performance Measurement and MetricsEmerald Publishing

Published: Dec 23, 2020

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Citations; CiteScore; Journal impact factor; Journal of scholarly publishing; Popularity; Predatory publishing

References