Should I Buy the Current Narrative about Predatory Journals? Facts and Insights from the Brazilian Scenario

IF 4.6 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Publications Pub Date : 2024-03-06 DOI:10.3390/publications12010007

C. Cena, Daniel Gonçalves, Giuseppe A. Câmara

{"title":"Should I Buy the Current Narrative about Predatory Journals? Facts and Insights from the Brazilian Scenario","authors":"C. Cena, Daniel Gonçalves, Giuseppe A. Câmara","doi":"10.3390/publications12010007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The burgeoning landscape of scientific communication, marked by an explosive surge in published articles, journals, and specialized publishers, prompts a critical examination of prevailing assumptions. This article advocates a dispassionate and meticulous analysis to avoid policy decisions grounded in anecdotal evidence or superficial arguments. The discourse surrounding so-called predatory journals has been a focal point within the academic community, with concerns ranging from alleged lack of peer review rigor to exorbitant publication fees. While the consensus often leans towards avoiding such journals, this article challenges the prevailing narrative. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes predatory practices and underscores the importance of skeptical inquiry within our daily academic activities. The authors aim to dispel misconceptions and foster a more informed dialogue by scrutinizing APCs, impact factors, and retractions. Furthermore, the authors delve into the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, addressing the generational shifts and emerging trends that challenge traditional notions of prestige and impact. In conclusion, this article serves as a call to action for the scientific community to engage in a comprehensive and nuanced debate on the complex issues surrounding scientific publishing.","PeriodicalId":37551,"journal":{"name":"Publications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12010007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The burgeoning landscape of scientific communication, marked by an explosive surge in published articles, journals, and specialized publishers, prompts a critical examination of prevailing assumptions. This article advocates a dispassionate and meticulous analysis to avoid policy decisions grounded in anecdotal evidence or superficial arguments. The discourse surrounding so-called predatory journals has been a focal point within the academic community, with concerns ranging from alleged lack of peer review rigor to exorbitant publication fees. While the consensus often leans towards avoiding such journals, this article challenges the prevailing narrative. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes predatory practices and underscores the importance of skeptical inquiry within our daily academic activities. The authors aim to dispel misconceptions and foster a more informed dialogue by scrutinizing APCs, impact factors, and retractions. Furthermore, the authors delve into the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, addressing the generational shifts and emerging trends that challenge traditional notions of prestige and impact. In conclusion, this article serves as a call to action for the scientific community to engage in a comprehensive and nuanced debate on the complex issues surrounding scientific publishing.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我该不该相信当前关于掠夺性期刊的说法？来自巴西的事实与启示

以发表文章、期刊和专业出版商的爆炸式增长为标志的科学传播领域的蓬勃发展，促使我们对普遍存在的假设进行批判性审视。本文主张进行冷静细致的分析，避免根据传闻证据或肤浅论点做出政策决定。围绕所谓 "掠夺性期刊 "的讨论一直是学术界的焦点，关注点从所谓缺乏同行评审的严谨性到高昂的出版费不等。尽管人们通常倾向于回避此类期刊，但本文对这一普遍说法提出了挑战。文章呼吁对掠夺性做法的构成要素有更细致入微的理解，并强调在日常学术活动中进行怀疑式探究的重要性。作者旨在消除误解，通过仔细研究APC、影响因子和撤稿情况，促进更加知情的对话。此外，作者还深入探讨了科学出版界不断演变的格局，探讨了挑战传统声望和影响概念的代际转变和新兴趋势。总之，这篇文章呼吁科学界行动起来，就围绕科学出版的复杂问题展开全面而细致的讨论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Publications Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

1.90%

发文量

审稿时长

11 weeks

期刊介绍： The scope of Publications includes: Theory and practice of scholarly communication Digitisation and innovations in scholarly publishing technologies Metadata, infrastructure, and linking the scholarly record Publishing policies and editorial/peer-review workflows Financial models for scholarly publishing Copyright, licensing and legal issues in publishing Research integrity and publication ethics Issues and best practices in the publication of non-traditional research outputs (e.g., data, software/code, protocols, data management plans, grant proposals, etc.) Issues in the transition to open access and open science Inclusion and participation of traditionally excluded actors Language issues in publication processes and products Traditional and alternative models of peer review Traditional and alternative means of assessment and evaluation of research and its impact, including bibliometrics and scientometrics The place of research libraries, scholarly societies, funders and others in scholarly communication.