Search results

This article aims to update an earlier article by the same author published in Library Hi Tech News in 2004 and analyses the failure of the Dublin Core metadata standard.

The article is a commentary.

The article finds that the Dublin Core metadata standard is moribund and that a newer, competing standard has rendered it essentially useless.

The paper updates Dublin Core’s increasing obsolescence and will help librarians understand the standard’s rapid rise and slow fall.

The issue of “predatory” publishing and the scholarly value of journals that claim to operate within an academic framework, namely, by using peer review and editorial quality control, but do not, while attempting to extract open access (OA) or other publication-related fees, is an extremely important topic that affects academics around the globe. Until 2017, global academia relied on two now-defunct Jeffrey Beall “predatory” OA publishing blacklists to select their choice of publishing venue. This paper aims to explore how media has played a role in spinning public impressions about this issue.

The authors focus on a 2017 New York Times article by Gina Kolata, on a selected number of peer reviewed published papers on the topic of “predatory” publications and on an editorial by the Editor-in-Chief of REM, a SciELO- and Scopus-indexed OA journal.

The Kolata article offers biased, inaccurate and potentially misleading information about the state of “predatory” publishing: it relies heavily on the assumption that the now-defunct Beall blacklists were accurate when in fact they are not; it relies on a paper published in a non-predatory (i.e., non-Beall-listed) non-OA journal that claimed incorrectly the existence of financial rewards by faculty members of a Canadian business school from “predatory” publications; it praised a sting operation that used methods of deception and falsification to achieve its conclusions. The authors show how misleading information by the New York Times was transposed downstream via the REM editorial.

Education of academics.

One of the main tasks of a researcher is to properly communicate the results he obtained. The choice of the journal in which to publish the work is therefore very important. However, not all journals have suitable characteristics for a correct dissemination of scientific knowledge. Some publishers turn out to be unreliable and, against a payment, they publish whatever researchers propose. The authors call “predatory journals” these untrustworthy journals. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the incidence of predatory journals in computer science literature and present a tool that was developed for this purpose.

The authors focused their attention on editors, universities and publishers that are involved in this kind of publishing process. The starting point of their research is the list of scholarly open-access publishers and open-access stand-alone journals created by Jeffrey Beall. Specifically, they analysed the presence of predatory journals in the search results obtained from Google Scholar in the engineering and computer science fields. They also studied the change over time of such incidence in the articles published between 2011 and 2015.

The analysis shows that the phenomenon of predatory journals somehow decreased in 2015, probably due to a greater awareness of the risks related to the reputation of the authors.

We focused on computer science field, using a specific sample of queries. We developed a software to automatically make queries to the search engine, and to detect predatory journals, using Beall’s list.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the status of the open access (OA) movement on the African continent, and if there is any financial or moral exploitation by dominant “foreign” world powers. OA provided the African intellectual community with a tool to prove its academic prowess and an opportunity to display cultural and intellectual independence. OA publishing is prone to abuse, and some in Africa have sought to exploit the OA boom to profit from non-academic activity rather than use this tool to glorify Africa’s image and diversity on the global intellectual stage. These issues are explored in detail in the paper.

The authors broadly assessed literature that is related to the growth and challenges associated with OA, including the rise of OA mega journals, in Africa.

African OA journals and publishers have to compete with established non-African OA entities. Some are considered “predatory”, but this Jeffrey Beall-based classification may be erroneous. Publishing values that African OA publishers and journals aspire to should not equal those published by non-African publishing entities. Africa should seek solutions to the challenges on that continent via Africa-based OA platforms. The budding African OA movement is applauded, but it must be held as accountable as any other OA journal or publisher.

African scholars need to reassess the “published in Africa” OA image.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.

The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.

The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.

It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.

This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Th study evaluates the apparent quality of the 10 Beall's List accounting journals with the highest citation rates by investigating whether the works that cite those journals are comparable to those that cite 11 Scopus journals of similar citation impact.

The study investigates the characteristics of the works that cited the Beall's List and Scopus journals, 2015–2020, comparing the two groups of citing works by publication type (article, book, etc.), extent of self-citation, inclusion in Beall's List and Scopus, Open Access (OA) status, publisher type, citation impact, and country/region of interest.

The Beall's List accounting journals tend to be cited in less reputable outlets; they are especially likely to be cited in Beall's List journals and especially unlikely to be cited in Scopus journals. However, other evidence suggests that these journals occupy a distinctive niche. The works that cite Beall's List journals are especially likely to be OA, to be published by universities and other nonprofits, and to focus on lower-income countries. They also have relatively low journal and publisher self-citation rates.

Beall's List accounting journals may be especially useful to scholars who rely on OA journals, who see their local universities as natural publishing partners, and who investigate topics of concern to developing countries. An increase in the number of non-predatory journals that cater to these authors' needs might help resolve the apparent problem of unmet demand for journal space.

The purpose of this paper is to share the author’s experience as an academic librarian for innovation services in library clinic of Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia. The emergence of the predatory journals, which have trapped victims, takes the role of the librarian as an information manager through the expertise’s required to become practicing professionals in implementing the knowledge, skills and experience.

The author draws upon own personal experiences as an academic librarian and presents evidence acquired through observations and conversations. This paper conducts a thorough literature review on how to implement innovation in library clinic services.

There are many academicians who have not been aware of the existence of predatory journals and many have been stuck into. Through the efforts of the library clinic, innovation will arise the ability to grasp information literacy and apply critical thinking skills.

Education and literacy as a key to the way to avoid mistakes in choosing an online journal. Hopefully, the library clinic services will minimize or avoid academicians to conduct transactions on the predatory journals.

Options to consider when reviewing Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) data suggest both advantages and disadvantages.

This short piece suggests some issues to ponder that may not be the most advantageous. Opening up the door to perhaps some troubling concerns encourage one to pause and consider the available technologies and the role of the metadata.

Earlier efforts to organize search output from online public access catalog searches retrieved items in reverse chronological order. Commercial indexing efforts were able to retrieve output in relevancy rankings based on search algorithms. This essay suggests that there are reasons for both and MARC contributes some particular nuances that complicate the potential for the most challenging searching.

Provides information of value to library professionals.

Changes in information retrieval architecture are causing an increase in the duplication of metadata records in bibliographic databases. This paper aims to examine the problem by explaining how it is caused and the problems it creates for database users.

The paper describes the current state of duplication in bibliographic databases and presents a new way of measuring the duplication. The paper contrasts the nature of monograph, serial, and journal article metadata to show how duplication is different for each.

The new measure of duplication the paper presents could help define the concept of duplication and could aid efforts at eliminating duplicate records in online bibliographic databases.

As metadata becomes a commodity and is sold in aggregate packages it will cause increased duplication in bibliographic databases.

The paper is the first to describe the etiology of duplicate metadata records in web‐scale, bibliographic databases. Also, the paper introduces a new way to measure duplication in these databases.

The Dublin Core Metadata Standard was conceived illegitimately, had a troubled life, and has finally met its demise. Developed as a tool for online resource discovery, the standard waned after the arrival of Google. Because its fields were designed with a lack of specificity, Dublin Core suffered from nonstandard data elements and poor interoperability. Also, the poor organization behind the initiative contributed to its failure. Dublin Core will likely soon be replaced by an emerging standard, the Metadata Object Description Schema.