{"title":"Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality","authors":"Dimity Stephen","doi":"arxiv-2405.06308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in\nquestionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative\nindicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can\nbe deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences\nobserved. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of\nspelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size\nand internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and\ninformed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on\nstatistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16\njournals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier\njournals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles\ndo diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in\npsychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the\neffect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS\njournals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as\nunder-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of\nerrors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a\ncomprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2405.06308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in
questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative
indicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can
be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences
observed. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of
spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size
and internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and
informed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on
statistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16
journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier
journals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles
do diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in
psychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the
effect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS
journals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as
under-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of
errors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.