4.1 Article

Who is Publishing in Biomedical Predatory Journals? A Study on Chinese Scholars

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 290-312

Publisher

UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3138/jsp-2022-0066

Keywords

predatory journals; biomedicine; academic misconduct; open access; blacklist

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is spreading globally. Numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals in China. This study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of such journals. It was found that most Chinese authors publishing in predatory journals work in hospitals and have limited knowledge about predatory journals.
The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available