Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.4.109

A Study on the Development of Checklist for Identifying the Predatory Journals Published Abroad  

Lee, Eun Jee (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터)
Kim, Hye Sun (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터)
Nam, Eunkyung (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터)
Kim, Wan Jong (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management / v.37, no.4, 2020 , pp. 109-130 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to develop a checklist that could identify the characteristics of predatory journals suspected of being poorly operated from the time of submission to publication. Accordingly 17 checklist questions were developed based on 3 priorities through overseas case studies and expert opinions. To verify the developed checklist, 100 journals included in Beall's list were randomly extracted and analyzed. As a result, 96 journals had features that were suspected to be questionable, there were not found in the 4 journals. A further case study and follow-up study of journals published in a broader field of research will require continued revision and supplementation of the 17 questions developed in this study.
Keywords
scholarly communication; open access; predatory journal; checklist;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Scudellari, M. (2015). "[T]hese things can happen in every lab: Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings." Retraction Watch. Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/02/mutant-plant-paper-uprooted-after-authors-cor rect-their-own-findings/
2 Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrived from https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
3 Lee, H., Kim, H., Kim, S., Chun, K., & Shin, J. (2019). Features and preventive measures of predatory publishing. NRF ISSUE REPORT, 1, 1-29.
4 Seo, T., & Jung, Y. (2018). Create a transparent academic publishing ecosystem: The problems and solutions of predatory publication. KISTI ISSUE BRIEF, 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22810/2018KIB001   DOI
5 Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179-179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a   DOI
6 Beall, J. (2013a). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC, 11(2), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525   DOI
7 Beall, J. (2013b). Index copernicus has no value. scholarly open access. Archived from the original on 2014-04-03. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
8 Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., ... & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9   DOI
9 Shen, C., & Bjork, B. (2015). 'Predatory' open acceess: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2   DOI
10 Think. Check. Submit. Retrieved from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/
11 Dadkhah, M., & Borchardt, G. (2016). Hijacked journals: An emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 36(6), 739-741. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw026   DOI
12 Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com.
13 Beaubien, S., & Eckard, M. (2014). Addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1133. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1133   DOI
14 Blas, N., Rele, S., & Kennedy, M. R. (2019). The development of the journal evaluation tool to evaluate the credibility of publication venues. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 7(1), eP2250. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2250   DOI
15 Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 525(7575), 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f   DOI
16 Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing It!. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.15171/apb.2016.001   DOI
17 DOAJ. Retrieved from https://www.doaj.org/
18 Radom, R., Feltner-Reichert, M., & Stringer-Stanback, K. (2012). SPEC Kit 332: Organization of scholarly communication services. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.29242/spec.332   DOI
19 Frandsen, T. (2019). How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1230   DOI
20 Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031   DOI
21 Regier, R. (2018). The institutionalized racism of scholarly publishing. Retrieved from https://awayofhappening.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-institutionalized-racism-of-scholarly-publishing/