Gateway to Think Tanks
来源类型 | Discussion paper |
规范类型 | 论文 |
来源ID | DP12309 |
DP12309 A Walk on the Wild Side: `Predatory' Journals and Information Asymmetries in Scientific Evaluations | |
Manuel Bagues; Natalia Zinovyeva; Mauro Sylos Labini | |
发表日期 | 2017-09-18 |
出版年 | 2017 |
语种 | 英语 |
摘要 | In recent years the academic world has experienced a mushrooming of journals that falsely pretend to be legitimate academic outlets. We study this phenomenon using information from 46,000 researchers seeking promotion in Italian academia. About 5% of them have published in journals included in the blacklist of `potential, possible, or probable predatory journals' elaborated by the scholarly librarian Jeffrey Beall. Data from a survey that we conducted among these researchers confirms that at least one third of these journals do not provide peer review or they engage in some other type of irregular editorial practice. We identify two factors that may have spurred publications in dubious journals. First, some of these journals have managed to be included in citation indexes such as Scopus that many institutions consider as a guarantee of quality. Second, we show that authors who publish in these journals are more likely to receive a positive evaluation when (randomly selected) scientific evaluators lack research expertise. Overall, our analysis suggests that the proliferation of `predatory' journals may reflect the existence of severe information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. |
主题 | Labour Economics |
关键词 | Scientific misconduct Academic evaluations |
URL | https://cepr.org/publications/dp12309 |
来源智库 | Centre for Economic Policy Research (United Kingdom) |
资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/541119 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Manuel Bagues,Natalia Zinovyeva,Mauro Sylos Labini. DP12309 A Walk on the Wild Side: `Predatory' Journals and Information Asymmetries in Scientific Evaluations. 2017. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。