Home /Archive /2018, Volume 14 /14(1) /Academic Publishing and «Predatory» Journals

Academic Publishing and «Predatory» Journals

TitleAcademic Publishing and «Predatory» Journals
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2018
AuthorsStrielkowski, W, Gryshova, I
Short TitleNauka innov.
DOI10.15407/scin14.01.005
Volume14
Issue1
SectionGeneral Problems of the Modern Research and Innovation Policy
Pagination05-12
LanguageEnglish
Abstract
Introduction. Publications in prestigious academic journals have a significant impact on the institutional rankings and help researchers to get grants. 
Problem Statement. Nevertheless, the issue of «where» to publish became more important than «what» to publish. The academic race for the higher number of publications led to debates about the phenomenon of the so-called «predatory» journals that publish scientific «rubbish» for money without proper peer review. 
Purpose. The purpose is to reveal the essence of «predatory» journals and to prove the necessity of indexation as an effective tool for assessing the quality of scientific publications. 
Materials and Methods. The ratings of scientific journals and publications in academic journals and «predatory» journals have been compared. 
Results. The Czech Republic is one of the countries that seem to be particularly obsessed with the issue of «predatory» journals making a storm in a teacup. According to some estimates, between 2009 and 2013, several Czech universities made around 2 million USD from their researchers their papers and monographs in «predatory» publishing outlets. The case of «predatory» journals was used by some less-productive institutes of the Czech Academy of Sciences to question the system of world's established academic metrics such as Scopus and Web of Science. 
Conclusions. All this is possible because currently there are many controversial lists and registries of «predatory» journals, which often contradict each other. However, it appears that indexation of academic journals in Scopus and Web of Science databases is more relevant for their academic worthiness than classifying them in accordance to a plethora of various amateurish lists and blogs. 
Keywordsacademic publishing, bibliometrics, predatory journals, Scopus, Web of Science
References
1. Weston, K. Educating students to play the publication game. Higher Education Research & Development. 2017.36(5): 1085-1088. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1284034 
2. Brembs, B., Button, K., Munfaro, M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013. 7:291. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
3. Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473-476. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915601421
4. Beall, J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012. 489(7415): 179. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
5. Grancay, M., Vveinhardt, J., Sumilo, E. Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000-2015. Scientometrics 2017. 111(3):1813-1837.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z
6. Beall, J. Beall’s list of predatory publishers. 2016. Available at:
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2... Accessed on: 07.10.2017.
7. MDPI. Response to Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s Repeated Attacks on MDPI. 2014.
Available at: www.mdpi.com/about/announcement/534 Accessed on: 07.10.2017.
8. Central Intelligence Agency. Robert James Woolsey’s testimony to SSCI, 2nd of February 1993. Available at: www.cia.gov/library Accessed on: 07.10.2017.
9. Strielkowski, W. Bell’s List is missed. Nature. 2017. 544: 416. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/544416b
10. Věda žije. Vysoké školy čerpaly prostředky z MŠMT za diplomové práce přetištěné jako odborné knihy (Universities received money from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport for diploma theses printed as scientific monographs). 2016.
Available at: http://vedazije.cz/node/5101. Accessed on: 30.09.2017.
11. SLON. Sociologické nakladatelství. 2017.
Available at: www.slon-knihy.cz. Accessed on: 30.09.2017.
12. Research, Development and Innovation Council of the Czech Republic. Methodology of remuneration for academic publications in the Czech Republic for the years of 2013-2016. 2013.
Available at: http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=685899. Accessed on: 02.10.2017.
13. Stöckelová, T., Linková, M. Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment.Science and Public Policy.2012. 39(5): 618-629. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs039
14. INOMICS. Job market survey. 2014.
Available at: www.inomics.com.2014-job-market-survey Accessed on: 02.10.2017.
15. Stöckelová, T. Sociological imagination for Future ESA Conferences.Sociologicky casopis-Czech Sociological Review. 2016. 52(3): 403-404. 
16. Smutný, Z., Řezníček, V. Predatory Open Access Publishers and other Dangers to Today’s Scientific Community. Acta Informatica Pragensia.2015. 4(2): 182-200.  
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.69
17. Cabell’s. The Journal Blacklist. 2017.
Available at: www.cabells.com/about-blacklist Accessed on: 06.10.2017.
18. Hutson, S. Publications of fake journals raises ethnical questions. Nature Medicine. 2009. 15: 598. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0609-598a