返回
Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals
DOI:10.1007/s11192-021-04121-8.png)
摘要
En 中文
One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two lists of questionable journals (Beall's and Cabell's), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.
Keyword:
Questionable journals
Beall's list
Cabell's list
Citation analysis
Predatory journals
期刊
IF:
3.5
论文数:
8.1K
被引数:
2.2W
机构
引用论文
High-Resolution Wide-Swath Ambiguous Synthetic Aperture Radar Modes for Ship Monitoring高分辨率宽幅模糊合成孔径雷达模式用于船舶监视
A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers两个数据库的故事: Web of Science和Scopus在学术论文中的使用
SCIENTOMETRICS
IF3.5
Characteristic analysis and blind area prediction of aeromagnetic scalar gradient detection method航空磁测标量梯度检测方法的特点分析及盲区预测
AIP Advances
IF0

