Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Perception of Predatory Journals among Members of the Korea Researcher Communities

국내 연구자 커뮤니티 구성원의 부실 학술지 인식에 대한 연구

  • 홍명아 (성균관대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 심원식 (성균관대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2024.05.13
  • Accepted : 2024.06.14
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The current debate in the academic community is on the criteria for predatory journals. Researchers are perplexed about what constitutes a predatory journal. The purpose of this study is to investigate how South Korean researchers discover and evaluate predatory journals. In order to achieve this, we collected 2,484 statements, comprising posts and comments, from Korean researcher communities, namely the Biological Research Information Center (BRIC), Hibrain.net, Phdkim.net, and the Scholarly Ecosystem Against Fake Publication Environment (SAFE). We divided the data into three primary categories-journals, publishers, and researchers-for the topic analysis. For each statement, we assigned 11 in-depth subtopic tags based on these categories. Six main points of contention emerged from the combinations of these sub-topic tags: (1) researchers' confusion about predatory journals and discussions about research performance; (2)(3) researchers' positive and negative perceptions of predatory journals; (4) researchers' evaluation criteria for journal quality and problems associated with the quality of Korean journals; (5) changes in publishing brought about by the introduction of open access (OA) and associated issues; and (6) discussions on broader issues within the academic ecosystem. By using a qualitative approach to examine how South Korean researchers view predatory journals, this study aims to advance basic knowledge of the discourse around them in the communities of domestic researchers.

최근 학술 생태계의 새로운 이슈 중 하나인 부실 학술지를 두고 판별 기준의 모호성에 대한 논쟁이 불거지고 있다. 이러한 논란은 연구자들에게 부실 학술지의 부실성이 무엇인지에 대해 혼란을 주고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 국내 연구자들이 부실 학술지를 어떻게 인식하고, 또 어떻게 판별하고 있는지를 파악하고자 했다. 이를 위해 한국의 대표적인 연구자 커뮤니티인 생물학연구정보센터(BRIC), 하이브레인넷, 김박사넷, 건전학술활동지원시스템(SAFE)을 대상으로, 2023년 11월까지 작성된 관련 게시글과 댓글 총 2,484건을 수집하였다. 수집된 텍스트 데이터에 대한 주제 분석을 위해 먼저 데이터를 3개의 큰 범주인 학술지, 출판사, 연구자로 구분하였고, 해당 범주에 따라 11가지의 세부 주제 태그로 분류하였다. 이후 세부 주제 태그의 조합에 근거하여 다음과 같은 부실학술지 관련 6개의 주요 논쟁점을 도출하였다. 첫째, 부실 학술지에 대한 연구자들의 혼란과 연구 실적에 대한 논란이다. 둘째, 부실 학술지에 대해 부정적인 인식을 가진 연구자들의 견해이다. 셋째, 부실 학술지에 대해 긍정적인 인식을 가진 연구자들의 견해이다. 넷째, 학술지 수준에 대한 평가 기준과 국내 학술지 수준에 대한 문제 제기이다. 다섯째, OA 확산에 따른 출판 관행의 변화와 이에 따른 문제 제기이다. 여섯째, 학술 생태계의 전반적인 문제에 대한 논의이다. 본 연구는 국내의 연구자들의 부실 학술지에 대한 인식을 정성적 측면에서 고려한 연구로서, 국내의 부실 학술지 논란에 대한 근본적인 이해를 형성하는 데 도움이 될 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim, Ji-Young, Kim, Hyun Soo, & Shim, Wonsik (2020). A study on open peer review perception of Korean authors in a Mega OA Journal. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 37(4), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.4.131
  2. Lee, Byung-Ryul & Lee, Jongsoo (2018). Spot survey for fostering online publication journal only. Korean Journal of Local Government & Administration Studies, 32(3), 41-69. http://doi.org/10.18398/kjlgas.2018.32.3.41
  3. Lee, Eun Jee, Kim, Hyesun, Nam, Eunkyung, & Kim, Wan Jong (2020). A study on the development of checklist for identifying the predatory journals published abroad. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 37(4), 109-130. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.4.109
  4. Lee, Eun Ju (2019). Characteristics of Predatory Journals in Medical & Health Science, and Analysis of Korean Researchers' Participation: Focusing on the Journals Published in 2018. Master's thesis, Korea University.
  5. Lee, hyobin, Cho, Young-Don, & Kim, Haedo (2021). A Study on the Ethical Standards of Peer Review Related to Academic Research(Issue Report No. 2021-3). Daejeon: National Research Foundation of Korea.
  6. Lee, hyobin, Kim, Haedo, Kim, So-hyeong, Chun, Gi-Woo, & Shin, Jeongbeom (2019). Key Features and Preventive Measures of Poor Academic Activities(Issue Report No. 2019-1). Daejeon: National Research Foundation of Korea.
  7. Lee, In Jae (2022). Preventing submissions to fake and predatory journals and conferences. Appraisal Studies, 21(3), 191-208.
  8. Nam, Kigon, Her, Jung, Kwon, Eunhwa, Kim, Myeongjin, Lim, Eunju, & Jung, Hyejin Jung (2023). Who has published papers in MDPI Journals?: Analysis on the research performance of Korean university professors in 2018-2020. The Korean Economic Forum, 16(3), 47-84. https://doi.org/10.22841/kefdoi.2023.16.3.003
  9. National Research Foundation of Korea (2023, December). Researchers' Experience and Perception of Predatory Journals. NRF Wedzine. Available: https://webzine.nrf.re.kr/nrf_2312/sub_2_01.html
  10. Noh, Younghee (2023). A research on misconceptions and understanding regarding open access journals and predatory journals. Korean Comparative Government Review, 27(3), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.18397/kcgr.2023.27.3.213.
  11. Noh, Younghee, Kang, Ji, Hei, Kim, Yong Hwan, Yang, Jeong-Mo, & Lee, Jongwook (2022). A study on improvements of research performance evaluation for enhancing the soundness of academic activities. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 33(4), 93-114. https://www.doi.org/10.14699/KBIBLIA.2022.33.4.093
  12. Park, Jinseo, Yun, Jinhyuk, & Lee, June Young (2019). Comparison of the Acceptance rate of Predatory Journals in Country and Field by Research Data(KISTI Data Insight No. 8). Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information.
  13. Park, Jun-hong (2020). A Comparison between ACE(Academic Consortium of Electronic resources) Journal Citation Frequencies and JCR, Scopus Indices Department of Digital Convergence Business. Doctoral dissertation, Yeungnam University.
  14. Song, SuJin (2021). A study on the paper review system for academic journals: Through the analysis of 「Japanese language culture」. Journal of Japanese Language and Culture, 57, 25-39. https://doi.org/10.17314/jjlc.2021..57.002
  15. Suh, Moon-Gi (2021). Journal evaluation: Issues and alternatives. The Journal of Culture Contents, 23, 29-54. http://doi.org/10.34227/tjocc.2021..23.29
  16. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489, 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
  17. Beall, J. (2014). Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers. 재인용: 남기 곤, 허정, 권은화, 김명진, 임은주, 정혜진 (2023). 누가 MDPI 학술지에 논문을 게재했을까?: 2018~2020년 한국 대학 교수들의 논문 실적에 대한 분석. 한국경제포럼, 16(3), 47-84. https://doi.org/10.22841/kefdoi.2023.16.3.003
  18. Beall, J. (2015, January 1). Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. Available: https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf.
  19. Beall, J. (2018). 'Scientific Soundness and the Problem of Predatory Journals', in Allison B. Kaufman, and James & C. Kaufman, Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press. As cited in Krawczyk, F. & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
  20. Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  21. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Ed. H. Cooper, Vol. 2, Research Designs, 57-71. Washington: APA Books.
  22. Crawford, K. & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55, 93-128. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2325784
  23. Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1-14. Available: https://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf
  24. Crosetto, P. (2021, April 12). Is MDPI a Predatory Publisher?. Available: https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/
  25. Eaton, S. E. (2018). Avoiding Predatory Journals and Questionable Conferences: A Resource Guide. Canada: University of Calgary. Available: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/cdd32e0a-b951-485b-bf7d-fcd6269346c6
  26. Ebadi, S. & Zamani, G. (2018). Predatory publishing as a case of symbolic violence: A critical English for academic purposes approach. Cogent Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1501889
  27. Grancay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Sumilo, E. (2017). Publish or perish: How central and eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000-2015. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1813-1837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z
  28. Kim, S. J. & Park, K. S. (2020). Market share of the largest publishers in Journal Citation Reports based on journal price and article processing charge. Science Editing, 7(2), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.210
  29. Krawczyk, F. & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
  30. Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals?. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
  31. Mertkan, S., Aliusta, G. O., & Suphi, N. (2021). Profile of authors publishing in 'predatory' journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 470-483. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab032
  32. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (2023, June 28). 2022 Impact Factors for MDPI Journals. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/6096
  33. Nelhans, G. & Bodin, T. (2020). Methodological considerations for identifying questionable publishing in a national context: The case of Swedish Higher Education Institutions. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 505-524. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00033
  34. New, J. (2013, May 15). Publisher Threatens to Sue Blogger for $1-Billion. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available: https://www.chronicle.com/article/publisher-threatens-to-sue-blogger-for-1-billion/
  35. Nishikawa-Pacher, A. (2023, August 22). Predatory journals on Twitter: The lack of community engagemen. MetaArXiv. Available: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/akv7r
  36. Olivarez, J., Bales, S., Sare, L., & Vanduinkerken, W. (2018). 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, 79(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52
  37. Oviedo-Garcia, M. A. (2021). Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). Research Evaluation, 30(3), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020
  38. Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley. K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
  39. Publishing Research Consortium (2016). Publishing Research Consortium Peer Review Survey 2015. London: Mark Ware Consulting. Available: https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5aqlvrhd07Kcl4X4FjpL5w/49877edd7058156421af83dc30ce0ca7/PRC-peer-review-survey-report-Final-2016-05-19.pdf
  40. Simmel G. (1950). The Sociology of George Simmel New York: Free Press. 재인용: 김영기, 정종 근, 이수상 (2007). 주제기반 온라인 학술 커뮤니티의 구축 방향: 학술연구자의 온라인 커뮤니티 에 대한 기능요구사항과 참여의지에 대한 분석을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 24(4), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.3743/OPEM.2007.24.4.005.
  41. Solomon, D. & Bjork, B. C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1485-1495. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673
  42. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Self citations in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33(4), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026644
  43. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do journal whitelists and blacklists have in academia?. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 781-792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017
  44. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Predatory publishing: A quantitative assessment, the predatory score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7, 21-34.
  45. Tonnies, F. (1967). Community and Society. Lansing: Michigan State University Press. 재인용: 김영기, 정종근, 이수상 (2007). 주제기반 온라인 학술 커뮤니티의 구축 방향: 학술연구자의 온라인 커뮤니티에 대한 기능요구사항과 참여의지에 대한 분석을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 24(4), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.3743/OPEM.2007.24.4.005
  46. Whitehouse, G. H. (2001). Citation rates and impact factors: Should they matter?. The British Journal of Radiology, 74(877), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.74.877.740001