Advertisement

Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 181–185 | Cite as

Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review

  • Mehdi Dadkhah
  • Mohammad Lagzian
  • Glenn Borchardt
Commentary

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Predatory journals Hijacked journals Citation databases Questionable papers Academic ethics Literature review 

References

  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 342(6154):60–65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohannon J (2015a) Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers. Science 348(6230):18–19. doi: 10.1126/science.348.6230.18 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohannon J (2015b) How to hijack a journal. Science 350(6263):903–905. doi: 10.1126/science.350.6263.903 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 2014Google Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Harzing AWK, Van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics 8(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jalalian M, Dadkhah M (2015) The full story of 90 hijacked journals from august 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica 19(2):73–87Google Scholar
  13. 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 Google Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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:1212.0638Google Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):69–81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International CCN Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Dadkhah
    • 1
  • Mohammad Lagzian
    • 1
  • Glenn Borchardt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran
  2. 2.Progressive Science InstituteBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations