Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia

作者：

Highlights：

• Using billions of citation records from Scopus, we performed a quantitative and controlled experiment on questionable publications compared with unquestioned counterparts.

• Our analysis discloses that questionable publishers overstate their citation impact by attributing publisher-level self-citations, which make it hard to detect by conventional journal metrics.

• The comprehensive influence reflected in disruptiveness and network centrality is also lower for questionable publications, indicating the negative ect of questionable publishers in academia.

摘要

•Using billions of citation records from Scopus, we performed a quantitative and controlled experiment on questionable publications compared with unquestioned counterparts.•Our analysis discloses that questionable publishers overstate their citation impact by attributing publisher-level self-citations, which make it hard to detect by conventional journal metrics.•The comprehensive influence reflected in disruptiveness and network centrality is also lower for questionable publications, indicating the negative ect of questionable publishers in academia.

论文关键词：Predatory,Greedy publishing,Controlled experiment,Citation impact,Science of science

论文评审过程：Received 11 August 2021, Revised 19 April 2022, Accepted 28 April 2022, Available online 6 May 2022, Version of Record 6 May 2022.

论文官网地址：https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101294