scholarly journals Early Career Researchers between Predatory Publishing and Academic Excellence: The Views and Behaviours of the Millennials

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-65
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Anthony Watkinson ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Academic Excellence ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Predatory Publishing

The paper draws on evidence of predatory publishing obtained from the 4 year-long Harbingers research study of the changing scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). The project featured longitudinal interviews for its first 3 years with 116 ECRs researching science and social sciences who came from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK and USA. The interview data provided the building blocks for a questionnaire survey in the 4th year, which obtained 1600 responses from a global audience, which included arts and humanities ECRs and those from Russia. These studies investigated predatory publishing as part of general questioning about scholarly communications, in other words, in context. The main finding from the interview study were: 1) ECRs generally do not publish in predatory journals; 2) they only allude to them lightly and mainly in the context of open access publishing; 3) they no longer acquaint all open access publishing with predatory journals. The questionnaire found that, as in the case of the interviews, complaints that open access is low quality publishing are diminishing, however, this positivity has been partly offset by increased concerns about the dangers of predatory journals.

scholarly journals How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Career Progression ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

scholarly journals Predatory Journals: A Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Zouina Sarfraz ◽  
Azza Sarfraz ◽  
Ammar Anwer ◽  
Zainab Nadeem ◽  
Shehar Bano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Boolean Logic ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
The Impact

Background: Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model. Most predatory journals do not follow policies that are set forth by organizations including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and a librarian at Auraria Library, coined the term ‘predatory journals’ to describe pseudo-journals. Our literature review has highlighted that predatory journal authorship is not limited to early-career researchers only. Majority of authors are unfamiliar with practices in pseudo journals despite publishing manuscripts. Methodology: For the purpose of this review, a systematic literature search was carried in October 2019 of the following databases: (1) Web of Science (all databases), (2) ERIC, and (3) LISTA. All stages of the review process included access to the search results and full articles for review and consequent analysis. Articles were added after screening fulltext articles by meeting the inclusion criteria and meeting none of the exclusion criteria. As there were a high number of articles reporting findings on predatory journals, they were further screened re-evaluating them for any deviations from the theme of this study. Relevant material published within the last five years was used. Results: After a thorough review, 63,133 were located using the Boolean logic. After reviewing 63 abstracts and titles for relevance, 9 articles were included in the literature review. Four themes are concerned with the results of the synthesis that demarcate legitimate and predatory publications. They include factors: (1) Related to the journal, (2) Academic and professional, (3) Dissemination, and (4) Personal. Conclusion: Our literature review found that there is a lack of one single definition for predatory journals. We believe that it is essential for potential authors and young researchers to have clear guidelines and make demarcations of potential journals that seem dubious. Moreover, the authors’ selection of publishers should be modified to control the risks of tainting ‘open-access’ publishing with fraudulent journals. The academic and research community ought to revise their criteria and recognize high quality and author journals as opposed to ‘predatory’ journals. Research mentorship, realigning research incentives, and education is vital to decrease the impact of predatory publishing in the near future.

scholarly journals Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Governance Mechanism ◽  
Management Research ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.

scholarly journals Hype or Real Threat: The Extent of Predatory Journals in Student Bibliographies

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Rainer Schira ◽  
Chris Hurst
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
University Students ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory publishing has risen with the development of open access publishing. This study examines how many potential predatory journals were used by Brandon University students by analyzing their bibliographies. In total, 245 bibliographies including 2,359 citations were analyzed. Of the 1,485 citations to journals in these citations, five were found to cite journals on Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. The probable sources of these journals in the students’ bibliographies were examined.

scholarly journals Predatory Publishing: How to Safely Navigate the Waters of Open Access

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Power
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
The Public ◽  
Know How ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers

Open access publishing enables scholarship to be openly accessible to everyone, which has countless benefits. However, the open access movement has opened the door for “predatory publishers” to take advantage of researchers surviving in this publish or perish academic landscape. Predatory journals are becoming increasingly common. Nursing researchers, instructors, and students need to be made aware of the dangers of predatory journals, and they need to know how to identify them. While there are blacklists and whitelists that can be used to aid in decision-making, it is critical to note that these lists can never be entirely up to date. This article incorporates a literature review which provides insights into newer trends in predatory and unethical publishing, including “journal hijacking” and “bogus impact factors”. Extensive criteria for assessing emerging or unknown journals is compiled to aid researchers, students, educators, and the public in evaluating open access publications.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

scholarly journals Almost Halfway There: An Analysis of the Open Access Behaviors of Academic Librarians

2011 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 443-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Mercer
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Academic Librarians ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Scholarly Communications

Academic librarians are increasingly expected to advocate for scholarly communications reforms such as open access to scholarly publications, yet librarians do not always practice what they preach. Previous research examined librarian attitudes toward open access, whereas this article presents results of a study of open access publishing and self-archiving behaviors of academic librarians. Following an analysis of open access to library and information science literature in 2008, several strategies to encourage academic librarians to continue to embrace open access behaviors are discussed.

Millennial researchers in a metric-driven scholarly world: An international study

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Hamid R Jamali ◽  
Abdullah Abrizah ◽  
Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Millennial Generation ◽  
International Study ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Early Career ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Waking Up

Abstract The study Investigates the attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in regard to citation-based metrics and altmetrics, providing the findings in the light of what might be expected of the millennial generation and in the context of what we already know about researchers in today’s ‘culture of counting’ governed scholarly world. The data were gathered by means of an international survey, informed by a preceding, 3-year qualitative study of 120 ECRs from 7 countries, which obtained 1,600 responses. The main conclusions are: 1, citation indicators play a central and multi-purpose role in scholarly communications; 2, altmetrics are not so popular or widely used, but ECRs are waking up to some of their merits, most notably, discovering the extent to which their papers obtain traction and monitoring impact; 3, there is a strong likelihood that ECRs are going to have to grapple with both citation-based metrics and altmetrics, mainly in order to demonstrate research impact; 4, the Chinese are the most metric using nation, largely because of governmental regulations.

OpenCon2014 in Washington DC, November 2014. Early Career Researchers and Open Access Advocacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Matt Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Narrative Approach ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Experience Levels ◽  
The Right ◽  
Academic Resources

Purpose – This paper aims to give an overview of OpenCon 2014, organized by the Right to Research Coalition, SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and an organizing committee of students and early career researchers from around the world that took place between the 14th and 17th of November 2014 in Washington DC. Design/methodology/approach – A narrative approach was used to describe events. Findings – OpenCon 2014 is an exciting new conference that targets early career librarians and researchers who are involved with and/or interested in aspects of the open-access movement. It is attempting to galvanize the upcoming generation of scholars to demand more of traditional publishing models by bringing together a selective group that spans diverse interests and experience levels. Originality/value – This report outlines the author's takeaways and opinions concerning the events of the conference, as well as identifies some of the themes and issues that were relevant to librarians in research institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document