An epistemological framework to appreciate the limits of predatory publishing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23756/sp.v10i1.714Abstract
The concept of “predatory” publishing, despite many studies of the phenomenon, continues to be unclear. This paper visualizes this topic through an epistemological perspective, claiming that these limitations emerge from an impressionism of idealization, the entrapment of cause and effect induced by a journalology-based perspective, and entrenched fantasized extraction, imagination and divination of what constitutes the truth, in essence, a path never followed by an epistēmōn. Reality, proof, verification, recorded observations and their interpretations have been pivoted to fit the theoretical flavor of the day, an entity one day being predatory, the next not. Perhaps ephemeral judgements of predatory have been built on boundless disregard for common sense. Yet, these have led to scientists’ apotheosis, almost oblivious of the intangibility of “valid”, or the infinitesimal continuum of “predatory”. Perhaps their fault-ridden authoritarian argumentative disabilities is at fault.Downloads
References
Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2019). Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics 25(1): 293–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5
Beall, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature 534: 326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/534326a
Cabells (2019). Cabells Predatory Report Criteria v 1.1. https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/20/predatoryreport-criteria-v1-1/ (March 20, 2019; last accessed: August 24, 2022)
Dony, C., Raskinet, M., Renaville, F., Simon, S., Thirion, P. (2020). How reliable and useful is Cabell's Blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly 30(1): 1–38. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K.D., Bryson, G.L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J.B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M.R., Egger, M., Graham, I.D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K.M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., Milzow, K., Mouton, J., Muchenje, M., Olijhoek, T., Ommaya, A., Patwardhan, B., Poff, D., Proulx, L., Rodger, M., Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Tamblyn, R., van Niekerk, M., Wicherts, J.M., Lalu, M.M. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576(7786): 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2018). On the methodology of the analytic method: Historical account, epistemological suggestions, stages. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 1: 70–89. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.19244
Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2020a). Towards the model of contributory expert generalists. Arhe 27(33): 123–143. https://doi.org/10.19090/arhe.2020.33.123-143
Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2020b). Verification in theory and in the sciences. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 3: 25–48. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.22106
Papageorgiou, K. G., & Lekkas, D. E. (2021). Epistēmē VS science. Arhe, 2021(35), 279–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19090/arhe.2021.35.279-312
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2013). Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 21–34.
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Citations and gamed metrics: academic integrity lost. Academic Questions 34(1): 96–99. https://doi.org/10.51845/34s.1.18
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2022). Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship (in press) https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2039242
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., Al-Khatib, A. (2019b). Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45(6): 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dunleavy, D.J., Moradzadeh, M., Eykens, J. (2021). A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of journals and publishers. Scientometrics 126(10): 8589–8616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(6): 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Tsigaris, P. (2020). Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46(1): 102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070
Tsigaris, P., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Why blacklists are not reliable: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47: 102266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102266
Yamada, Y., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2022) A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity (in press) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The journal is committed to real and immediate open access for academic work. All of the journal articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. There are no charge for readers to download articles and reviews for their own scholarly use. Benefits of open access for authors, include:
- Free access for all users worldwide
- Increased visibility and readership
- Rapid publication
- No spatial constraints
- Authors can share their research papers on their personal web-pages (i.e. ResearchGate, etc.)
Copyright and Licensing Terms
SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY publishes open access articles under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open-access article, as long as the author is properly attributed. Copyright on any research article published by SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY is retained by the author(s). Authors grant SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
For further information visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. The following logo will appear in any paper that will be published from the volume number 31/2016 onwards:
