| Title |
Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aamir Raoof Memon |
| Abstract |
In the internet era spam has become a big problem. Researchers are troubled with unsolicited or bulk spam emails inviting them to publish. However, this strategy has helped predatory journals hunt their prey and earn money. These journals have grown tremendously during the past few years despite serious efforts by researchers and scholarly organizations to hinder their growth. Predatory journals and publishers are often based in developing countries, and they potentially target researchers from these counties by using different tactics identified in previous research. In response to the spread of predatory publishing, scientists are trying to develop criteria and guidelines to help avoid them-for example, the recently reported "predatory rate". This article attempts to (a) highlight the strategies used by predatory journals to convince researchers to publish with them, (b) report their article processing charges, |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 8% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Spain | 3 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 57% |
| Scientists | 21 | 34% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 18 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 30 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,101,189
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#58
of 972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,086
of 309,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.