Search results

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.

The academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.

This article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.

The empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.

This study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.

Predatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Using Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).

Results indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.

This study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.

These findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.

This study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

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.

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.

Despite the widespread studies on the attitudes about OA, there exists little comparative evidence about the opinions of author and non-author parties at a global level in a social context. To bridge the gap, this study first investigated the opinions of the users who posted at least one tweet about OA in 2019. Then, it zoomed in to explore the views of the OA-interested tweeters, i.e. the users who have posted five or more tweets about OA.

Using a content analysis method, with an opinion-mining approach, this study examined a sample of 9,268 OA-related tweets posted by 5,227 tweeters in 2019. The sentiments were analyzed using SentiStrength. A threshold of at least five tweets was set to identify the OA-interested tweeters.

Academics and scholars, library and information professionals, and journals and publishers were the main OA-interested tweeters, implying that OA debates have not been widely propagated from its traditional audience to the general public. Despite an overall positive attitude, the tweeters showed negative perspectives about the gold and hybrid models, validity and quality, and costs and funds. The negativity depended on the OA features tweeted, the tweeters' occupations and gender, as well as the trends.

The low societal impact of the OA debates calls for solutions to attract the public's attention and to exploit their potential to achieve the OA ideals. The OA stakeholders' divergence necessitates finding solutions to remedy the pitfalls. It also underlines the need for scrutiny into social layers when studying society's opinions and behaviors in a social network.

This is the first study in estimating the extent of the societal impact of OA debates, comparing the social OA stakeholders' opinions and their dependence on the OA features tweeted, the tweeter roles and gender and the tweet trending status.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0502

The purpose of this study is to examine whether open accessibility of medical journals published in Africa may influence journals’ citation impact.

An evaluative informetric research approach was used to compare 134 health and medical (H&M) journals hosted in the African Journals Online (AJOL) database. Harzing’s Publish or Perish (PoP) software was used to extract the following publication and citation data from Google Scholar: citation counts, number of papers and the h-index of the journals. Three null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study.

A total of 65 open access (OA) and 69 non-OA H&M journals of African origin were found in AJOL. Only 20 African countries have journals hosted in AJOL, with more than 53% of them from Nigeria and 13.4% from South Africa. Findings reveal that non-OA H&M journals performed poorly in terms of citations compared with their OA counterparts. The t-test analysis revealed high significant difference in the citations and research impacts of OA and non-OA H&M journals published in Africa.

The study will assist in collection development in medical and health libraries globally and in Africa particularly. The study will also be a useful guide to journal publishers, health researchers and health workers providing information on where to publish and the journals to subscribe.

Apart from adding to the body of knowledge in scholarly communication in Africa, this study will go a long way in influencing policies in H&M research in Africa.

AJOL is the only online database hosting journals from all countries in Africa. Unfortunately, the quality and research impact of the journals in the database have not been adequately investigated. The paper adopted an informetric approach to evaluate H&M journals in Africa so as to provide wider insight on the contents and quality of the journals hosted in it.

This paper aims to analyse a set of converging trends underpinning a larger phenomenon called science 2.0 and to assess what are the most important implications for scientific method and research institutions.

It is based on a triangulation of exploratory methods which include a wide-ranging literature review, Web-based mapping and in-depth interviews with stakeholders.

The main implications of science 2.0 are enhanced efficiency, transparency and reliability; raise of data-driven science; microcontributions on a macroscale; multidimensional, immediate and multiform evaluation of science; disaggregation of the value chain of service providers for scientists; influx of multiple actors and the democratisation of science.

The paper rejects the notion of science 2.0 as the mere adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in science and puts forward an original integrated definition covering three trends that have not yet been analysed together: open science, citizens science and data-intensive science. It argues that these trends are mutually reinforcing and puts forward their main implications. It concludes with the identification of three enablers of science 2.0 – policy measures, individual practice of scientists and new infrastructure and services and sees the main bottleneck in lack of incentives on the individual level.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on information literacy and library instruction through an extensive annotated bibliography of publications covering all library types.

This paper annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2017 in over 200 journals, magazines, books and other sources.

The paper provides a brief description for all 590 sources.

The information may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.