Evidence Engines: Common Rhetorical Features of Fraudulent Academic Articles

IF 1.9 1区文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION

Written Communication Pub Date : 2022-01-31 DOI:10.1177/07410883211069332

E. H. Pflugfelder

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Predatory publishers deliver neither the editorial oversight, nor the peer review of legitimate publishers, and benefit from those whose positions require academic publications. These publishers also provide a home for conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters, as their lack of scrutiny offers fraudulent academic research articles a veneer of scholarly credibility. While most predatory journals were designed to dupe researchers, the fraudulent articles they often publish are designed to be found by members of the public, and their accessibility ensures that unlike legitimate research, they are likely to be employed as evidence by those seeking evidence. While studies have examined the common features of predatory journals, their emails, and their websites, this essay situates fraudulent academic articles in posttruth discourse, offers a taxonomy of illegitimate research articles, and highlights their common rhetorical features, in the hopes that the concepts discovered here can further contribute to pedagogy and public understanding.

查看原文本刊更多论文

证据引擎：学术欺诈文章的常见修辞特征

掠夺性出版商既不提供编辑监督，也不提供对合法出版商的同行评审，并从那些立场需要学术出版物的出版商那里受益。这些出版商也为阴谋论者和伪科学推动者提供了一个家，因为他们缺乏审查，为欺诈性学术研究文章提供了学术可信度的外表。虽然大多数掠夺性期刊都是为了欺骗研究人员，但它们经常发表的欺诈性文章是为了让公众发现，它们的可访问性确保了与合法研究不同，它们很可能被寻求证据的人用作证据。虽然研究已经检查了掠夺性期刊、其电子邮件和网站的共同特征，但本文将欺诈性学术文章置于创伤后话语中，对非法研究文章进行分类，并强调其共同的修辞特征，希望这里发现的概念能进一步有助于教育学和公众理解。

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

Written Communication COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

15.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Written Communication is an international multidisciplinary journal that publishes theory and research in writing from fields including anthropology, English, education, history, journalism, linguistics, psychology, and rhetoric. Among topics of interest are the nature of writing ability; the assessment of writing; the impact of technology on writing (and the impact of writing on technology); the social and political consequences of writing and writing instruction; nonacademic writing; literacy (including workplace and emergent literacy and the effects of classroom processes on literacy development); the social construction of knowledge; the nature of writing in disciplinary and professional domains.