Volume 51 Issue 3, April 2020, pp. 165-181

Notes
  • Jeffrey Beall, ‘What I Learned from Predatory Publishers,’ Biochemia Medica 27, no. 2 (2017): 273–78, doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029; Derek Pyne, ‘The Rewards of Predatory Publications at a Small Business School,’ Journal of Scholarly Publishing 48, no. 3 (2017): 137–60, doi:10.3138/jsp.48.3.137. Google Scholar
  • Declan Butler, ‘Investigating Journals: The Dark Side of Publishing,’ Nature 495, no. 7742 (2013): 433–35, doi:10.1038/495433a. Google Scholar
  • Agnes Grudniewicz et al., ‘Predatory Journals: No Definition, No Defence,’ Nature 576 (2019): 210–12, 211, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. Google Scholar
  • Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk, ‘“Predatory” Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics,’ BMC Medicine 13 (2015): 230, doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2. Google Scholar
  • Limbikani Matumba et al., ‘Blacklisting or Whitelisting? Deterring Faculty in Developing Countries from Publishing in Substandard Journals,’ Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50, no. 2 (2019): 83–95, doi: 10.3138/jsp.50.2.01. Google Scholar
  • ‘Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher Ed,’ American Association of University Professors, accessed 14 September 2019, https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/10112018%20Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf. Google Scholar
  • ‘Postsecondary Enrolments, by International Standard Classification of Education, Program Type and Credential Type,’ Statistics Canada, accessed 14 September 2019, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710006901. Google Scholar
  • Marek Kwiek, ‘Social Stratification in Science: What It Means at the Micro-level of Individual Academics’ (keynote address, Society for Research into Higher Education Conference, Newport, UK, December 2018), http://www.srhe.ac.uk/conference2018/files/Kwiek-Keynote-Title-and-think-piece(1).doc; Nelson Phillips, ‘What Is Academic Success Anyway? A Rejoinder to “Confronting the Crisis of Confidence in Management Studies,”’ Academy of Management Learning & Education 18, no. 2 (2019): 306–9, doi:10.5465/amle.2018.0339. Google Scholar
  • Kwiek, ‘Social Stratification in Science.’ Google Scholar
  • Anne-Wil Harzing and Nancy J. Adler, ‘Disseminating Knowledge: From Potential to Reality—New Open-Access Journals Collide with Convention,’ Academy of Management Learning & Education 15, no. 1 (2016): 140–56, doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0373. Google Scholar
  • Neil C. Herndon, ‘Research Fraud and the Publish or Perish World of Academia,’ Journal of Marketing Channels 23, no. 3 (2016): 91–96, doi:10.1080/1046669X.2016.1186469. Google Scholar
  • Dalmeet Singh Chawla, ‘Predatory-Journal Papers Have Little Scientific Impact,’ Nature News (blog), 13 January 2020, doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00031-6. Google Scholar
  • Pyne, ‘Rewards of Predatory Publications.’ Google Scholar
  • G.A. Ajuwon and A.J. Ajuwon, ‘Predatory Publishing and the Dilemma of the Nigerian Academic,’ African Journal of Biomedical Research 21, no. 1 (2018): 1–5. Google Scholar
  • Joseph D. Olivarez et al., ‘Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals,’ College & Research Libraries 7, no. 1 (2018): 52–67, doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.52. Google Scholar
  • Nola Taylor Redd, ‘Fake Science Paper about “Star Trek” and Warp 10 Was Accepted by “Predatory Journals,”’ Space.com (blog), 13 February 2018, https://www.space.com/39672-fake-star-trek-science-paper-published.html. Google Scholar
  • Charlotte J. Haug, ‘Peer-Review Fraud: Hacking the Scientific Publication Process,’ New England Journal of Medicine 373, no. 25 (2015): 2393–95, doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330. Google Scholar
  • Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci, ‘Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again,’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no. 2 (1982): 187–95, doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011183. Google Scholar
  • ‘The 2019 ABDC Journal Quality List,’ Australian Business Deans Council, accessed 24 March 2020, https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/2019-review/. Google Scholar
  • Matumba et al., ‘Blacklisting or Whitelisting?’ Google Scholar
  • Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella, ‘Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers,’ College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 3 (2015): 132–35, doi:10.5860/crln.76.3.9277. Google Scholar
  • Wilhelm Peekhaus and Nicholas Proferes, ‘An Examination of North American Library and Information Studies Faculty Perceptions of and Experience with Open-Access Scholarly Publishing,’ Library & Information Science Research 38, no. 1 (2016): 18–29, doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2016.01.003. Google Scholar
  • Susan K. Gardner and Daniela Veliz, ‘Evincing the Ratchet: A Thematic Analysis of the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines at a Striving University,’ Review of Higher Education 38, no. 1 (2014): 105–32, doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0045. Google Scholar
  • Jeffrey Beall, ‘Predatory Journals and the Breakdown of Research Cultures,’ Information Development 31, no. 5 (2015): 473–76, doi:10.1177/0266666915601421; Alexander McLeod, Arline Savage, and Mark G. Simkin, ‘The Ethics of Predatory Journals,’ Journal of Business Ethics 153, no 1 (2018): 121–31, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3419-9. Google Scholar
  • Directory of Open Access Journals, https://doaj.org/. Google Scholar
  • ‘Sources,’ Scopus, accessed 4 March 2020, https://www.scopus.com/sources. Google Scholar
  • JournalGuide, https://www.journalguide.com/. Google Scholar
  • Herman Aguinis et al., ‘Scholarly Impact: A Pluralist Conceptualization,’ Academy of Management Learning & Education 13, no. 4 (2014): 623–39, doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0121. Google Scholar
  • Alison Abbott et al., ‘Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?’ Nature 465, no. 7300 (2010): 860–62, doi:10.1038/465860a. Google Scholar
  • Elizabeth A. Oldmixon and J. Tobin Grant, ‘Using Journal Impact Factor to Assess Scholarly Records: Overcorrecting for the Potter Stewart Approach to Promotion and Tenure,’ Forum 17, no. 2 (2019): 257–69, doi:10.1515/for-2019-0016. Google Scholar