Affiliation:
1. German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies
Abstract
This ongoing study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative indicators typically associated with quality, and what can be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences observed. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, and other characteristics of 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 non-WoS/non-QJs, all in the field of psychology. Initial results indicate that there are differences between QJs and non-QJ samples, however these are relatively small, perhaps indicating that QJs may not substantially differ from non-QJs on these quantitative indicators of quality. However, I intend to use additional analyses to further explore any potential differences.
Publisher
International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators
Reference15 articles.
1. Akbaritabar, A., Stephen, D., & Squazzoni, F. (2022). A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101258(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101258)
2. Bianchini, C., Cosentino, C., Paci, M., & Baccini, M. (2020), Open Access Physical Therapy Journals: Do Predatory Journals Publish Lower-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(6), 969-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.012.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.012.)
3. Böschen, I. (2022). JATSdecoder: A Metadata and Text Extraction and Manipulation Tool Set. R package version 1.1. https://github.com/ingmarboeschen/JATSdecoder.(https://github.com/ingmarboeschen/JATSdecoder.)
4. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Report No. RBR-8-75. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.()
5. McCutcheon, L. Aruguete, M., Jenkins, W., Williams, J., Rivardo, M., & Shaughnessy, M. (2016). How Questionable Are Predatory Social Science Journals? North American Journal of Psychology, 18(3), 427-440.()