Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing
Performance Measurement and Metrics
ISSN: 1467-8047
Article publication date: 20 November 2020
Issue publication date: 23 December 2020
Abstract
Purpose
In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.
Findings
We found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.
Originality/value
The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.
Keywords
Citation
Tsigaris, P. and Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021), "Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing", Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-03-2020-0015
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited