| Title |
Fake Journals: Their Features and Some Viable Ways to Distinguishing Them
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9595-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Hemmat Esfe, Somchai Wongwises, Amin Asadi, Mohammad Akbari |
| Abstract |
In this paper, we aim to discuss the fake journals and their advertisement and publication techniques. These types of journals mostly start and continue their activities by using the name of some indexed journals and establishing fake websites. The fake journals and publishers, while asking the authors for a significant amount of money for publishing their papers, have no peer-review process, publish the papers without any revision on the fake sites, and put the scientific reputation and prestige of the researchers in jeopardy. In the rest of the paper, we present some viable techniques in order for researchers and students to identify these journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 125 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 | 14 | 11% |
| United States | 11 | 9% |
| Spain | 10 | 8% |
| India | 5 | 4% |
| Mexico | 5 | 4% |
| Colombia | 5 | 4% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| Turkey | 4 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 76 | 61% |
| Scientists | 30 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 15 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Librarian | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 29% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 38% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 16 June 2023.
All research outputs
#478,578
of 25,390,203 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#16
of 968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,621
of 259,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 259,003 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.