Avoiding predatory journals and publishers: a cross-sectional study

Q2 Social Sciences
Alehegn Adane Kinde
{"title":"Avoiding predatory journals and publishers: a cross-sectional study","authors":"Alehegn Adane Kinde","doi":"10.3897/ESE.2021.E52348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Predatory journals (PJs) are journals that receive and publish articles through unethical publishing practices. Due to the boom of PJs, researchers face a wide range of journals from which to choose. Non-peer reviewed and low-quality articles can ruin the trustworthiness of science and have a damaging impact on decision-makers.\n Objective: To assess the level of awareness among Ethiopian researchers of PJs and to improve the awareness level through training.\n Method: The participants were professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers from different disciplines. The study included 18 statements for participants to indicate their level of awareness on the Likert scale, questions on knowledge resources on PJs, and open-ended questions about ways of avoiding PJs. A one-day programme trained the participants in detecting and avoiding PJs.\n Results: 43 participants completed the pre-assessment online survey and 37 participants completed the post-assessment survey. Many researchers were unaware of PJs and found it somewhat difficult to differentiate PJs from legitimate journals. However, during the post-assessment, the awareness level improved and the participants’ rating of the task of differentiating PJs from legitimate journals changed from ‘Somewhat difficult’ to ‘Easy’.\n Conclusion: Many researchers were unaware of the potential distinctions between PJs and legitimate journals that are crucial to an appropriate journal for publishing. Especially low awareness was found on the journal impact factor, journal indexing services, and reputable publishers. Hence, before manuscript submission, authors ought to know and practise evaluating journals on the basis of the recommended criteria.","PeriodicalId":35360,"journal":{"name":"European Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ESE.2021.E52348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Predatory journals (PJs) are journals that receive and publish articles through unethical publishing practices. Due to the boom of PJs, researchers face a wide range of journals from which to choose. Non-peer reviewed and low-quality articles can ruin the trustworthiness of science and have a damaging impact on decision-makers. Objective: To assess the level of awareness among Ethiopian researchers of PJs and to improve the awareness level through training. Method: The participants were professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers from different disciplines. The study included 18 statements for participants to indicate their level of awareness on the Likert scale, questions on knowledge resources on PJs, and open-ended questions about ways of avoiding PJs. A one-day programme trained the participants in detecting and avoiding PJs. Results: 43 participants completed the pre-assessment online survey and 37 participants completed the post-assessment survey. Many researchers were unaware of PJs and found it somewhat difficult to differentiate PJs from legitimate journals. However, during the post-assessment, the awareness level improved and the participants’ rating of the task of differentiating PJs from legitimate journals changed from ‘Somewhat difficult’ to ‘Easy’. Conclusion: Many researchers were unaware of the potential distinctions between PJs and legitimate journals that are crucial to an appropriate journal for publishing. Especially low awareness was found on the journal impact factor, journal indexing services, and reputable publishers. Hence, before manuscript submission, authors ought to know and practise evaluating journals on the basis of the recommended criteria.
避免掠夺性期刊和出版商:一项横断面研究
背景:掠夺性期刊(PJs)是指通过不道德的出版行为接收和发表文章的期刊。由于睡衣的兴起,研究人员面临着广泛的期刊选择。未经同行评议和低质量的文章会破坏科学的可信度,并对决策者产生破坏性影响。目的:了解埃塞俄比亚科研人员对睡衣的认知水平,并通过培训提高对睡衣的认知水平。方法:研究对象为不同学科的教授、副教授、助理教授和讲师。这项研究包括18个陈述,让参与者表明他们在李克特量表上的意识水平,关于睡衣的知识资源的问题,以及关于如何避免穿睡衣的开放式问题。一个为期一天的项目训练参与者发现和避免穿睡衣。结果:43名参与者完成了评估前在线调查,37名参与者完成了评估后调查。许多研究人员不知道PJs,并且发现很难将PJs与合法期刊区分开来。然而,在之后的评估中,意识水平提高了,参与者对区分睡衣和合法期刊的任务的评级从“有点困难”变为“容易”。结论:许多研究人员没有意识到PJs和合法期刊之间的潜在区别,这对一个合适的期刊发表至关重要。尤其是在期刊影响因子、期刊索引服务和声誉良好的出版商方面,人们的认知度很低。因此,在投稿之前,作者应该了解并实践根据推荐标准对期刊进行评估。
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
European Science Editing
European Science Editing Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: EASE"s journal, European Science Editing , publishes articles, reports meetings, announces new developments and forthcoming events, reviews books, software and online resources, and highlights publications of interest to members.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信