12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003–2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority–or experience level–of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Stop this waste of people, animals and money

            Predatory journals have shoddy reporting and include papers from wealthy nations, find David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Kelly Cobey and colleagues.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                8 November 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 11
                : e0224541
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
                [2 ] Department of Communication and Learning in Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
                Universitat de Valencia, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1680-0112
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3129-0330
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7876-4631
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4869-7949
                Article
                PONE-D-19-14700
                10.1371/journal.pone.0224541
                6839901
                31703069
                84d1eb11-b83e-4b95-a5aa-5a35160373b0
                © 2019 Eykens et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 May 2019
                : 28 September 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, Pages: 19
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011878, Vlaamse regering;
                This investigation has been made possible by the financial support of the Flemish government to the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Scientific Publishing
                Science Policy
                Open Science
                Open Access Publishing
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Scientific Publishing
                Publication Practices
                Open Access Publishing
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Peer Review
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Careers
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Citation Analysis
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                Custom metadata

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article