Dataset Information

Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour.

Design

Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics' journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database.

Setting

Peer review of journal articles.

Participants

Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons.

Measurements

Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year.

Results

Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%).

Conclusion

To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

SUBMITTER: Severin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8296767 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted. RESULTS:Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n?=?90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n?=?68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range?=?3 to 64) which were not weighted (n?=?91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n?=?78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n?=?91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n?=?90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool. CONCLUSION:There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.MethodsThe sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.ResultsA total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).ConclusionsMulti-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. DESIGN:An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. PARTICIPANTS:Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. RESULTS:Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14%?response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. CONCLUSIONS:This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.