Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing

IF 1.8 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Performance Measurement and Metrics Pub Date : 2020-11-23 DOI:10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015

Panagiotis Tsigaris, J. A. T. Silva

{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing","authors":"Panagiotis Tsigaris, J. A. T. Silva","doi":"10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeIn 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.","PeriodicalId":44583,"journal":{"name":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm-03-2020-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposeIn 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.FindingsWe found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.Originality/valueThe authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

掠夺性出版争议论文的文献计量分析

2017年，一项研究(Derek Pyne;学术出版杂志;DOI: 10.3138 / jsp.48.3.137;多伦多大学出版社(University of Toronto Press)以“掠夺性”出版的文学作品吸引了全球媒体的关注。现在，三年多来，根据调整后的谷歌Scholar数据，该论文被引用53次(Clarivate Analytics的Web of Science中有34次)，成为该作者被引用最多的论文，占其谷歌Scholar被引用次数的三分之一。在本文中，作者对引用该论文的作者进行了文献计量学分析。我们发现，在39篇英国同行评议的期刊论文中，有11篇(28%)对派恩的发现进行了批判性评价，其中一些甚至驳斥了这些发现。Pyne(2017)论文的2019年引用导致《学术出版期刊》2019年期刊影响因子增加43%，为0.956,2019年CiteScore增加7.7%。原创性/价值作者认为，引用Pyne(2017)论文的学者和众多媒体没有意识到其有缺陷的发现。

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

Performance Measurement and Metrics INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： ■Quantitative and qualitative analysis ■Benchmarking ■The measurement and role of information in enhancing organizational effectiveness ■Quality techniques and quality improvement ■Training and education ■Methods for performance measurement and metrics ■Standard assessment tools ■Using emerging technologies ■Setting standards or service quality