Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia

Abstract

Questionable publications have been accused of "greedy" practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, i.e., journals and publishers, and prosumers, i.e., authors. Questionable publications attribute publisher-level self-citations to their journals while limiting journal-level self-citations; yet, conventional journal-level metrics are unable to detect these publisher-level self-citations. We propose a hybrid journal-publisher metric for detecting self-favouring citations among QJs from publishers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the questionable publications were less disruptive and influential than their counterparts. Our findings indicate an inflated citation impact of suspicious academic publishers. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy-making against questionable publications.

arXiv comment16 pages of main text including 4 figures + 42 pages of supplementary information including 38 supplementary figures

References in corpus (4)

• Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016)
• Detection of Core-Periphery Structure in Networks Using Spectral Methods and Geodesic Paths
• Exploiting citation networks for large-scale author name disambiguation
• Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks