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

Download PDF
9 pages

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 Metrics – Emerald Publishing

Published: Dec 23, 2020

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

References

  • Predatory journals: who publishes in them and why?
    Demir, S.B.
  • Predatory journals on trial: allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS
    Manley, S.
  • The rewards of predatory publishing at a small business school
    Pyne, D.
  • Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy
    Siler, K.
  • CiteScore: a cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Memon, A.R.
  • Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: an epidemiological approach
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tsigaris, P.
  • Letter to the editors
    Tsigaris, P.
  • Did the research faculty at a small Canadian business school publish in “predatory” venues? This depends on the publishing blacklist
    Tsigaris, P.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
  • Moderation by ResearchGate related to comments on ‘predatory’ publishing practices
    Tsigaris, P.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
  • Predatory publishing and the Ghana experience: a call to action for information professionals
    Atiso, K.; Kammer, J.; Bossaller, J.
  • An education session developed in response to low health professional awareness of predatory journals
    Babb, M.N.; Dingwall, O.
  • Benchmarking publication metrics for Indian business researchers: exploring the role of collaboration
    Behl, A.; Chavan, M.; Dutta, P.; Sheorey, P.A.
  • Predatory publishing through McCornarck's information manipulation theory
    Bett, H.K.
  • Investigating academic library responses to predatory publishing in the United States, Canada and Spanish-speaking Latin America
    Ciro, J.B.; Bowker, L.
  • Do not feed the predators
    de Jager, P.; de Kock, F.; van der Spuy, P.
  • An analysis through cases and cyber threats in academic life
    Damar, M.; Gökşen, Y.
  • Scholarly databases under scrutiny
    Demir, S.B.
  • Thousands of Australian academics on the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers
    Downes, M.
  • “Why we should have listened to Jeffrey Beall from the start”
    Downes, M.
  • Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature
    Frandsen, T.B.
  • Les transformations de l'évaluation de la recherche
    Gingras, Y.
  • Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet-era transformation of scholarly communications
    Green, T.
  • Distinguishing predatory from reputable publishing practices
    Happe, L.E.
  • Valuing scholarship
    Hart, R.
  • Open access: current overview and future prospects
    Holley, R.P.
  • Measuring the evolution of a scientific field through citation frames
    Jurgens, D.; Kumar, S.; Hoover, R.; McFarland, D.; Jurafsky, D.
  • Publishing in an environment of predation: the many things you really wanted to know, but did not know how to ask
    Linacre, S.; Bisaccio, M.; Earle, L.
  • Predatory publishing and the academic librarian: developing tools to make decisions
    Lopez, E.; Gaspard, C.S.
  • Scientific journals: oligopoly and open access
    Luchilo, L.J.
  • Our predatory conference problem
    McCrostie, J.
  • Do tenure and promotion policies discourage publications in predatory journals?
    McQuarrie, F.A.E.; Kondra, A.Z.; Lamertz, K.
  • Türk akademisyenlerin yağmacı dergilere ilişkin görüşleri: Bir nitel betimsel çalışma
    Mutlu, G.
  • Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study
    Perlin, M.S.; Imasato, T.; Borenstein, D.
  • L'édition scientifique «piratée». Passage en revue et esquisse de problématisation
    Saint-Martin, A.
  • Do Norwegian academics who publish more earn higher salaries?
    Sandnes, F.E.
  • Being a deliberate prey of a predator: researchers' thoughts after having published in predatory journal
    Shaghaei, N.; Wien, C.; Holck, J.; Thiesen, A.L.; Ellegaard, O.; Vlachos, E.; Drachen, T.
  • Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research
    Siler, K.; Haustein, S.; Smith, E.; Larivière, V.; Alperin, J.P.
  • Unexpected emails to submit your work: spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers
    Soler, J.; Cooper, A.
  • Ethical editing: a case study in avoiding predatory publishers
    Strubberg, B.C.
  • Why does Retraction Watch continue to offer support to Jeffrey Beall, and legitimize his post-mortem “predatory” lists?
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
  • Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing lists
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
  • Academics must list all publications on their CV
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tsigaris, P.
  • What value do journal whitelists and blacklists have in academia?
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tsigaris, P.
  • How hyped media and misleading editorials can influence impressions about Beall's lists of ‘predatory’ publications
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tsigaris, P.
  • Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: an assessment
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Dobránszki, J.; Tsigaris, P.; Al-Khatib, A.
  • Reproducibility issues with correlating Beall-listed publications and research awards at a small Canadian business school
    Tsigaris, P.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
  • Economists behaving badly: publications in predatory journals
    Wallace, F.H.; Perri, T.J.
  • A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees
    Wilkinson, T.A.; Russell, C.J.; Bennett, W.E.; Cheng, E.R.; Carroll, A.E.
  • Indicators of public activity and quality criteria of scientific editions: approaches to definition
    Yehorov, I.Y.