↓ Skip to main content

‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 2,238)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
30 news outlets
blogs
30 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
431 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
250 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cenyu Shen, Bo-Christer Björk

Abstract

A negative consequence of the rapid growth of scholarly open access publishing funded by article processing charges is the emergence of publishers and journals with highly questionable marketing and peer review practices. These so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. Reports about this branch of e-business have so far mainly concentrated on exposing lacking peer review and scandals involving publishers and journals. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution. After an initial scan of all predatory publishers and journals included in the so-called Beall's list, a sample of 613 journals was constructed using a stratified sampling method from the total of over 11,000 journals identified. Information about the subject field, country of publisher, article processing charge and article volumes published between 2010 and 2014 were manually collected from the journal websites. For a subset of journals, individual articles were sampled in order to study the country affiliation of authors and the publication delays. Over the studied period, predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10-99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. The regional distribution of both the publisher's country and authorship is highly skewed, in particular Asia and Africa contributed three quarters of authors. Authors paid an average article processing charge of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission. Despite a total number of journals and publishing volumes comparable to respectable (indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals) open access journals, the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries, where the academic evaluation practices strongly favor international publication, but without further quality checks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 431 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Spain 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 4 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Croatia 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Other 13 3%
Unknown 352 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 104 26%
Researcher 57 14%
Other 39 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 10%
Student > Master 29 7%
Other 101 26%
Unknown 26 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 97 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 17%
Computer Science 39 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 7%
Arts and Humanities 26 7%
Other 83 21%
Unknown 55 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 716. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#9,119
of 14,382,261 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#12
of 2,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189
of 250,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,382,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 250,434 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them