Search results

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.

In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.

We 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.

The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an estimate of the costs of premature mortality caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using COVID-19 pandemic-derived mortality data for November 9, 2020 (globally 1,303,215 deaths) and applying a country-based value of statistical life (VSL), the worldwide cost of premature mortality was assessed. The cost was assessed based on income groups until November 9, 2020 and projected into the future until March 1, 2021 using three scenarios from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME).

The global cost of premature mortality is currently estimated at Int$5.9 trillion. For the high-income group, the current estimated cost is Int$ $4.4 trillion or $3,700 per person. Using IHME projections until March 1, 2021, global premature mortality costs will increase to Int$13.7 trillion and reach Int$22.1 trillion if policies are relaxed, while the cost with 95% universal masks is Int$10.9 trillion. The richest nations will bear the largest burden of these costs, reaching $15,500 per person by March 1, 2021 if policies are relaxed.

The cost of human lives lost due to the pandemic is unprecedented. Preparedness in the future is the best policy to avoid many premature deaths and severe recessions in order to combat pandemics.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the beliefs of undergraduate business students studying in Canada and partners in China about the quality of the program; what they consider effective signals of quality; and their willingness to pay to improve the quality.

A survey was designed and distributed to 481 students in the transnational program during the 2009 and 2011 academic years. Statistical tests were conducted to examine mean differences in the perception of quality, different signals of quality and willingness to pay to improve quality.

The findings of the study indicate that Canadian University and Chinese partner students, mostly in their final years of study, have similar beliefs about the quality of the program. They consider the program as good quality but not top rated. Chinese partners' students in their earlier years of study have a lower perception of quality but this gets better as they progress through the program. Students perceive high quality reputation and professional accreditation as equally important in terms of signalling quality. Finally, many students are willing to pay more to improve the quality of the program.

Some limitations of the study include convenience sample selection and size, translation of survey, the framing of the survey questions and controlling for factors such as grade point average, gender and other factors.

The paper provides important information to monitor quality and to place a value on pursuing accreditation and tuition fee increases.

Students' perception of quality has remained under‐examined in the literature. The research establishes a framework which can lead to future explorations.