Zafer KOÇAK

MISLEADING METRICS: PREDATORY TRADE EXPANDS

Research and scientific papers are measured, compared, and frequently ranked using journal metrics. They may also be referred to as journal rankings, journal relevance, or journal impact. Journal metrics allow academics and researchers to compare scholarly publications. The most prestigious ones are the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) based on Web of Science data, and CiteScore and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) based on Scopus data. As we all know, the availability of these metrics for a journal is associated with its indexing in these bibliographic databases, such as the Web of Science Core Collection or Scopus, and is a proxy to determining the quality of the journal. The number of open access journals is growing rapidly. According to a report by the University of Regensburg Library, there were more than 60,000 open access journals worldwide in 2018 (EBZ 2018). While open access has brought many benefits to academic publishing, it has also introduced us to many low-quality (Non-indexed) journals, as well as predatory journals and publishers. Thousands of journals therefore compete for manuscripts from researchers/authors. It is clear how difficult it is for new and low-quality journals to receive manuscripts in this competitive environment. Naturally, authors do not want to submit their research to journals that are not indexed or have no metrics. Recently, in some countries, publishing in predatory journals has even become a barrier to academic promotion (Koçak 2012).

MISLEADING METRICS: PREDATORY TRADE EXPANDS

Keywords:

misleading metrics, predatory publishing fake impact factor,

PDF

___

1. Anonymous. 2023. Misleading Metrics. https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/ (Date accessed: 21.09.2023).
2. Beall, J. 2012. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489: 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
3. Butler, D. 2013. Sham journals scam authors. Nature, 495: 421-422. https://doi.org/10.1038/495421a
4. Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., Lagzian, M. & Bianciardi, G. 2017. Academic journals plagued by bogus impact factors. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33: 183-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4
5. Dadkhah, M., Rahimnia, F. & Memon, A.R. 2022. How Frequent is the Use of Misleading Metrics? A Case Study of Business Journals. The Serials Librarian, 83: 197-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2022.2145414
6. EZB. (2018). About the EZB. Retrieved from http://rzblx1.uniregensburg.de/ezeit/about.phtml?bibid=AAAAA&colors=7&lang=en (Date accessed: 21.09.2023).
7. Gutierrez, F.R.S., Beall, J. & Forero, D.A. 2015. Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays, 37: 474-476. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011
8. Jalalian, M. & Mahboobi, H. 2013. New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations. Electronic Physician Journal, 5: 685-686. https://doi.org/10.14661/2013.685-686
9. Koçak, Z. 2022. The Recent Decisions of the Turkish Council of Higher Education on Predatory Journals. Balkan Medical Journal, 39: 81-82. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2022.21022022
10. Linacre, S. 2021. Mountain to climb. https://blog.cabells.com/2021/09/01/mountain-to-climb/ (Date accessed: 21.09.2023).
11. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., Galipeau, J., Roberts, J. & Shea B.J. 2017. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine 15(1): 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
12. Xia, J. & Smith, M.P. 2018. Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 31: 403-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1200