Are papers published in predatory journals worthless? A geopolitical dimension revealed by content-based analysis of citations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21255865 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Zehra Taşkın (0000-0001-7102-493X, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań), Flávio Krawczyk (0000-0003-1097-9032, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań), Emanuel Kulczycki (0000-0001-6530-3609, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 44-67 |
| Publication date | 2023-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Quantitative Science Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2641-3337 • E-ISSN: 2641-3337 |
| Publisher | MIT Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1162/qss_a_00242 |
| OpenAlex | W4319074078 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 39 |
This study uses content-based citation analysis to move beyond the simplified classification of predatory journals. We present that, when we analyze papers not only in terms of the quantity of their citations but also the content of these citations, we are able to show the various roles played by papers published in journals accused of being predatory. To accomplish this, we analyzed the content of 9,995 citances (i.e., citation sentences) from 6,706 papers indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, which cites papers published in so-called “predatory” (or questionable) journals. The analysis revealed that the vast majority of such citances are neutral (97.3%), and negative citations of articles published in the analyzed journals are almost completely nonexistent (0.8%). Moreover, the analysis revealed that the most frequently mentioned countries in the citances are India, Pakistan, and Iran, with mentions of Western countries being rare. This highlights a geopolitical bias and shows the usefulness of looking at such journals as mislocated centers of scholarly communication. The analyzed journals provide regional data prevalent for mainstream scholarly discussions, and the idea of predatory publishing hides geopolitical inequalities in global scholarly publishing. Our findings also contribute to the further development of content-based citation analysis
Biology · Citation · Citation analysis · Citation impact · CITES · Content analysis · Geopolitics · Library science · Mainstream · MEDLINE · Open access publishing · Political science · Politics · Publishing · Social science · Sociology · Web of science · Computer Science · Law · Mathematics · scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Ecology
How metric-based performance evaluation systems fuel the growth of questionable publications
Beyond collaboration
Medical articles in questionable journals are less impactful than those in non-questionable journals but still extensively cited
Quo vadis Web of Science? The expansion and selection criteria of the Social Science Citation Index
A Geopolitics Of Academic Writing
Predatory journals
Predatory publishers are corrupting open access
Bibliometrics
Citation contagion
Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals
A decade of in-text citation analysis based on natural language processing and machine learning techniques
Scite
Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers
Content Analysis of References
Science Studies
On the geopolitics of academic publishing
What drives global science? The four competing narratives
The Pharmaceutical Assemblage
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |