Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review
Tóm tắt
In recent years, the academic world has been faced with much academic misconduct. Examples involve plagiarizing papers, manipulating data, and launching predatory or hijacked journals. The literature exposing these activities is growing exponentially, and so is the presentation of criteria or guidelines for counteracting the problem. Most of the research is focused on predatory or hijacked journal detection and providing suitable warnings. Overlooked in all this is the fact that papers published in these journals are questionable, but nevertheless show up in standard citation databases. We need some way to flag them so future researchers will be aware of their questionable nature and prevent their use in literature review.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Beall J (2013) Medical publishing triage–chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg 2(2):47–49. doi:10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9
Beall J (2016) Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean Med Sci 31(10):1511–1513. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
Bhad R, Hazari N (2015) Predatory journals in psychiatry: a note of caution. Asian J Psychiatr 16:67–68. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2015.06.008
Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 342(6154):60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Bohannon J (2015a) Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers. Science 348(6230):18–19. doi:10.1126/science.348.6230.18
Bohannon J (2015b) How to hijack a journal. Science 350(6263):903–905. doi:10.1126/science.350.6263.903
Dadkhah M, Borchardt G (2016) Hijacked journals: an emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthet Surg J 36(6):739–741. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw026
De Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández F, González-Molina A, Herrero-Solana V (2007) Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics 73(1):53–78. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4
Dyrud AM (2014). Predatory online technical journals: A question of ethics. In 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A, June 15–18, 2014
Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS (2016) Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open Access Journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. West J Emerg Med 17(5):497. doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328
Harzing AWK, Van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics 8(1):61–73
Jalalian M, Dadkhah M (2015) The full story of 90 hijacked journals from august 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica 19(2):73–87
Jalalian M, Mahboobi H (2014) Hijacked journals and predatory publishers: is there a need to re-think how to assess the quality of academic research? Walailak J Sci & Tech 11(5):389–394. doi:10.14456/WJST.2014.16
Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307
Lopez-Cozar ED, Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D (2012) Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638
Nahai F (2015) The rise of predatory journals: what difference does it make? Aesthet Surg J 35(8):1042–1043. doi:10.1093/asj/sjv085
Osipov G, Smirnov I, Tikhomirov I, Sochenkov I, Shelmanov A, Shvets A (2014) Information retrieval for R&D support. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8830:45–69. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12511-4_4
Tin L, Ivana B, Biljana B, Ljubica IB, Dragan M, Dušan S (2014) Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers–a global outbreak with rising trend: a review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3):69–81