Advertisement

Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 122–137 | Cite as

The Hunter Became the Hunted: A Graduate Student’s Experiences with Predatory Publishing

  • Zachary W. TaylorEmail author
Article

Abstract

As predatory publishing has influenced the educational research community, this study sought to understand and articulate current predatory publishing practices which may render important academic research “post-truth” or “fake news” if authors are not careful where they publish and with whom. Findings suggest predatory publishers obscure publication charges, steal identities of real scholars and position them as editors of predatory journals, mimic website aesthetics of credible journals, and gather author information to further promote predatory publishing and fake academic conferences. Future research and viability of open-access publishing are addressed, as well as a discussion of academic publishing, predatory publishing, and the pressure graduate students and junior researchers often experience during the “publish or perish” process of tenure and promotion.

Keywords

Academic publishing Scholarly work Predatory publishing Peer review Academic writing 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Oxford University Press. Post-truth. 2018. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth.
  2. 2.
    Cowell JM. Importance of peer review. J Sch Nurs. 2014;30(6):394–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840514557235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beall J. Predatory Publishing Is Just One of the Consequences of Gold Open Access. Learn Publish. 2013;26(2):79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1087/20130203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(10):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eve MP, Priego E. Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? TripleC. 2017;15(2):755–70.  https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chawla DS. The Undercover Academic Keeping Tabs on ‘Predatory’ Publishing. 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02921-2.
  7. 7.
    Hoffecker L. Cabells scholarly analytics. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):270–2.  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Nuland SE, Rogers KA. Academic nightmares: predatory publishing. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(4):392–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    da Silva T, Dobránszki JA. Multiple versions of the H-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes. Scientometrics. 2018;115(2):1107–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2680-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vogel L. Researchers may be part of the problem in predatory publishing. CMAJ. 2017;189(42):1324–5.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardner SK. The development of doctoral students–phases of challenge and support. In: Report no. 6. N.p., 2009. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ835648.
  12. 12.
    Dooley MD, Sweeny K. The stress of academic publishing. 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Stress-of-Academic/241156.
  13. 13.
    Scimago Lab. Scimago journal and country rank: education. 2018. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3304.
  14. 14.
    American Educational Research Association. AERA Open: Submission Guidelines. 2018. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/aera-open#submission-guidelines.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations