Did the Research Faculty at a Small Canadian Business School Publish in “Predatory” Venues? This Depends on the Publishing Blacklist

Panagiotis Tsigaris,Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva

doi:10.3390/publications7020035

Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020035

Copy DOI

Journal: Publications	Publication Date: May 20, 2019
Citations: 8	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Thompson Rivers University

Abstract

The first ever quantitative paper to claim that papers published in so-called “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers were financially remunerated emerged from Canada. That study, published in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing (University of Toronto Press) in 2017 by Derek Pyne at Thompson Rivers University, garnered wide public and media attention, even by renowned news outlets such as The New York Times and The Economist. Pyne claimed to have found that most of the human subjects of his study had published in “predatory” OA journals, or in OA journals published by “predatory” OA publishers, as classified by Jeffrey Beall. In this paper, we compare the so-called “predatory” publications referred to in Pyne’s study with Walt Crawford’s gray open access (grayOA) list, as well as with Cabell’s blacklist, which was introduced in 2017. Using Cabell’s blacklist and Crawford’s grayOA list, we found that approximately 2% of the total publications (451) of the research faculty at the small business school were published in potentially questionable journals, contrary to the Pyne study, which found significantly more publications (15.3%). In addition, this research casts doubt to the claim made in Pyne’s study that research faculty members who have predatory publications have 4.3 “predatory” publications on average.

Highlights

IntroductionOne of the most challenging of these is the issue of “predatory” publishing, a concept that came to the fore of the discussion on academic publishing when a US librarian, Jeffrey Beall, started a blog that denounced what he perceived to be unscholarly activities by select open access (OA) journals and publishers
Academic publishing is full of challenges and is in a dynamic state of change
This paper focuses on how Pyne’s results would change if Walt Crawford’s gray open access list, which was in existence at the time of the Study, as well as Cabell International’s blacklist, had been used

Summary

Introduction

One of the most challenging of these is the issue of “predatory” publishing, a concept that came to the fore of the discussion on academic publishing when a US librarian, Jeffrey Beall, started a blog that denounced what he perceived to be unscholarly activities by select open access (OA) journals and publishers. Beall referred to such entities as “predatory” OA journals and publishers, hereafter POAJs and POAPs, respectively. The publication of those blacklists may have been one partial reason for the shuttering of Beall’s blog, as was suggested by Beall himself [1].1

Methods

Results

Conclusion