26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to the journal, please click here

      We invite news and articles concerning all aspects of academic and professional publishing. Papers are welcomed from across the scholarly publishing community.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study focuses on the phenomenon of presumed predatory scientific publications in the field of Educational Sciences, and the utilization of email by editors to request manuscripts. It examined, using content analysis methods, 210 emails received by three professors of the field of Education, at a Spanish university with different research profiles over a period of 3 months. Through analysis of the unsolicited emails a total of 139 journals and 37 publishers were identified and examined using: (a) the two main predatory journal inventories (Beall's list and Cabells' Predatory Reports), and (b) six of the major scientific bibliographic databases. The publishers and their websites were also analyzed, as well as the basic aspects of the emails' content. The majority of the unsolicited emails were from predatory journals or publishers and half of the article requests did not match the field of the recipient. In addition, it is relevant to note that more than half of the domains of predatory publishers analysed have untrustworthy security levels. The data provided relevant information on the phenomenon of predation in scientific publications in the field of Education and, most importantly, provided evidence for developing training and preventive strategies to tackle it.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

            The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.

              Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others' ability to use one's work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Learned Publishing
                Learned Publishing
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                0953-1513
                1741-4857
                October 2022
                February 24 2022
                October 2022
                : 35
                : 4
                : 441-447
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Balearic Islands Institute for Educational Research and Innovation Palma Spain
                Article
                10.1002/leap.1450
                049d3ac1-cf83-4707-bbbd-ccf189f0887f
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Intellectual property law,Information & Library science,Communication & Media studies
                science dissemination,scientific communication,content analysis,educational sciences,academic writing,academic ethics

                Comments

                Comment on this article