• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.33-61
• /
• 2024

The emergence of Open Access (OA) and other changes to the academic publishing ecosystem have made the prevalence of predatory journals a significant concern. Academic librarians play a crucial role in the academic environment that protects researchers and takes action against predatory journals. Nonetheless, there isn't many research that looks into how academic librarians view and handle predatory journals. This study aims to give an exploratory analysis of the overall perceptions of predatory journals among university librarians in South Korea. A survey was administered to academic librarians between April 10 and May 1, 2024, and 78 respondents' answers were examined. The findings demonstrate that opinions among South Korean academic librarians on predatory journals are not all uniform. Based on their readiness and willingness to supply services, the respondents could be roughly categorized into four groups, according to cluster analysis. The study affirms that training librarians and improving cooperation between academic libraries and researchers are critical prerequisites for the advancement of services aimed at predatory publications. We anticipate that this study, which is the first of its type to explore how academic librarians in South Korea see predatory journals, will be a valuable starting point for university libraries as they plan and offer services related to predatory journals in the future.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.97-130
• /
• 2024

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.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.17-22
• /
• 2020

Purpose: This study is to develop managerial implications for JSAS for advancing to highly qualified journal and achieving its goals. Furthermore, the study sough to deduce implications of ethical issues of JSAS and to generate insights and future directions for JSAS management. Research design, data and methodology: This study employed a qualitative approach to review the current status of JSAS including its aims, managerial strategies and ethical systems. The study discussed ethical issues about fake journals and predatory journals to analyze the current states of JSAS's ethical system and to compare with each other. Results: Results indicated that JSAS has abided ethical requirements of common journals and established strict criteria, yet it should continuously observe blind peer-review systems to avoid unnecessary risks of being perceived as predatory journals. The rigorous ethical obedience will help JSAS to effectively perform its managerial strategies and to achieve its goals: Increasing submissions, inviting prestigious scholars to board member, and advance to high quality of journal. Conclusions: Continuous efforts of JSAS for ethical management is the most effective method to move to a high qualified international journal with reputation in academia. With the consideration of Korean journal society, ethical studies need to be further conducted.

• Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.53-71
• /
• 2022

The overall purposes of this study are to identify actions taken to counter predatory publishing practices as well as to propose an ICT-based model to detect such practices. The need to raise quantitative performance metrics to support career goals has created immense pressure on researchers to publish in the literature as frequently as possible. This "publish or perish" syndrome appears to be fueling a rise in scholarly journals and conferences that provide quicker and easier routes to publication. However, such avenues sometimes involve questionable academic practices with important ethical ramifications. One notable example is the proliferation of predatory publishing, including predatory journals and fake conferences. The widening impact of such activities is beginning to prompt academic societies, publishers, and institutions to take measures. This paper discusses the issues on predatory publishing practices, and some of the actions taken by various stakeholders to address these practices. In order to build a transparent and sustainable scholarly publishing ecosystem, this study highlights multi-dimensional and specific solutions, including reforms to research ethics codes, research management rules, and legal protection from exploitative practices. This paper proposes an ICT-based cooperative model for monitoring of predatory publishers as a potential solution to create a sustainable and transparent infrastructure for a scholarly publication system guarding against misconduct in publishing practices.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.109-130
• /
• 2020

This study aims to develop a checklist that could identify the characteristics of predatory journals suspected of being poorly operated from the time of submission to publication. Accordingly 17 checklist questions were developed based on 3 priorities through overseas case studies and expert opinions. To verify the developed checklist, 100 journals included in Beall's list were randomly extracted and analyzed. As a result, 96 journals had features that were suspected to be questionable, there were not found in the 4 journals. A further case study and follow-up study of journals published in a broader field of research will require continued revision and supplementation of the 17 questions developed in this study.

• Journal of the Korean neurological association
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.289-293
• /
• 2018

This article explains the relationship between open-access publications and pseudo-journals, and explores their characteristics including predatory journals and journal hijackers. Pseudo-journals and pseudo-conferences cause the disruption of academic development by spreading low quality information as well as the violation of research ethics by abusing research funds. Finally, preventive measures are described from the perspective of journal authors/researchers, institutions/funding organizations, and journal editors.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.21-24
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This paper aims to evaluate and reinstate preventative guidelines necessary for a sound academic journal (or academic conference) for the articles published by KODISA and its branch journals. As questionable or predatory academic journals and academic conferences are rapidly increasing, preemptively establishing preventative standards have become essential to obviate questionable academic activities. Research design, data and methodology: This is an analytical study that explores and examines research, publication ethics, and misconducts. For this purpose, research ethics related data in overseas and domestic academic journals have been examined and analyzed. Results: The issues identified from this research are as follows: enhancing the expertise of editor-inchief (no concurrent jobs for major and non-major area); clarifying the index; complying with the review policy (The review policy should be publicly announced); complying with anonymous review process; complying with 3 peer-review policy, complying with the publication policy as per field of study; avoiding conference hosting at holiday resorts unless unavoidable; complying with the planned programs and cancelling events if not feasible; following proper review standards and management for all journals, including the journals publishing large number of articles (all materials should be prepared in case explanatory data is required); complying with the marketing policy standards; complying with the impact factor; excluding personal solicitation; and complying with the general policy. Conclusions: Questionable and predatory academic activities by academic organizations and journals will continue, and it is the responsibility of the individual scholars to identify and reject these types of dubious academic activities. This study provides standards to prevent the possibility of questionable academic activities that have been conducted in the past. The analysis and findings will strengthen the continued efforts of KODISA as it strives to be a transparent, ethical, and professional academic association, and the association will continue to foster an academic environment that is well-respected by scholars and practitioners throughout the world.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.22-36
• /
• 2023

This study assesses the growth and distribution of research journals indexed in Scopus from 2000 through 2019, using SCImago data for journal and country ranking. A total of 15,484 journals were indexed in Scopus up till 1999, and from 2000 to 2019, 11,037 journals were indexed in Scopus at an average of 581.85 journals per year at an average annual corresponding growth of 2.74%. Of the total journals indexed in Scopus, 41.61% were indexed during the last two decades. Europe is the leading continent publishing nearly 60% of the total world journals, while Africa publishes around 1% of journals, the lowest among all the continents. The United Kingdom, United States (US), China, Brazil, Australia, and Egypt are the leading countries publishing the maximum number of journals from their respective continents. Of the total journals indexed across the world, nearly one-fourth (6,425, 24.23%) are published in the US. Still more, of the 109 journal publishing countries across the world, nearly 90% of journals are published in twenty leading journal publishing countries. Among the 27 major Scopus recognized subject disciplines, the majority (1,606, 6.06%) of journals are published in the field of medicine. The growth of research journals and the growth of research results has moved at a uniform pace, and any asymmetry between the two is bound to result either in the introduction of predatory and dubious journals or in the production of sub-standard research results.