Search

AbstractThis study uses content-based citation analysis to move beyond the simplified classification of predatory journals. We present that, when we analyze papers not only in terms of the quantity of their citations but also the content of these citations, we are able to show the various roles played by papers published in journals accused of being predatory. To accomplish this, we analyzed the content of 9,995 citances (i.e., citation sentences) from 6,706 papers indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, which cites papers published in so-called “predatory” (or questionable) journals. The analysis revealed that the vast majority of such citances are neutral (97.3%), and negative citations of articles published in the analyzed journals are almost completely nonexistent (0.8%). Moreover, the analysis revealed that the most frequently mentioned countries in the citances are India, Pakistan, and Iran, with mentions of Western countries being rare. This highlights a geopolitical bias and shows the usefulness of looking at such journals as mislocated centers of scholarly communication. The analyzed journals provide regional data prevalent for mainstream scholarly discussions, and the idea of predatory publishing hides geopolitical inequalities in global scholarly publishing. Our findings also contribute to the further development of content-based citation analysis.

Jednym z problemów współczesnego środowiska akademickiego jest zrozumienie różnic pomiędzy uznanymi czasopismami naukowymi a tzw. czasopismami drapieżnymi. Podczas gdy osoby kształtujące politykę naukową i menedżerowie nauki uważają czasopisma indeksowane w popularnych indeksach cytowań, takich jak Web of Science czy Scopus, za rzetelne, to do identyfikacji drapieżnych czasopism używają dwóch czarnych list (tzw. lista Bealla i lista Cabell’s), z których jedna nie jest aktualizowana od kilku lat. Głównym celem naszego artykułu jest pokazanie, jak czasopisma uznane za rzetelne podnoszą widoczność artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach znajdujących się na czarnych listach. W tym celu przebadaliśmy 65 czasopism z nauk społecznych znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 2338 czasopism indeksowanych przez Web of Science, które cytowały te czasopisma. Przeanalizowaliśmy 3234 artykuły z czasopism znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 5964 artykuły (6750 cytowań) z czasopism indeksowanych w Web of Science. Nasze wyniki pokazują, że 13% artykułów z czarnych list było cytowanych przez czasopisma z Web of Science, a 37% cytowań pochodziło z czasopism z impact factor. Okazuje się, że nie ma istotnej zależności między impact factor a liczbą cytowań w czasopismach z czarnej listy, mimo że jest on jest wykorzystywany przez osoby kształtujące politykę naukową do określania poziomu czasopism. Z drugiej strony należy wziąć pod uwagę jako czynnik wyjaśniający kraj i praktyki autocytowania stosowane w czasopismach.

Commercial bibliometric databases, and the quantitative indicators presented by them, are widely used for research assessment purposes, which is not fair for the humanities. The humanities are different from all other areas by nature in many aspects. This study aimed to show the extent of the difference in terms of five size-independent bibliometric indicators, based on citations and collaborations. We used categorical InCites data (1980–2020) to compare six main Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) subject areas, and the 45,987 sources of humanities, to make a comparison for subareas of the humanities. Results showed that the humanities are statistically different from all other areas, including social sciences, with high effect sizes in terms of the five indicators taken into consideration. Besides that, all the subareas of the humanities differ from each other. This main finding indicates that the humanities do not need new indicators for quantitative evaluation, but different approaches for assessment, such as bottom-up approaches.

Türkiye’de kütüphanecilik ve bilgibilim alanı literatürünün gelişmesinde Üniversite ve Araştırma Kütüphanecileri Derneği’nin (ÜNAK) resmi yayın organı olan Bilgi Dünyası dergisinin katkısı bilinmektedir. 2000 yılından bu yana Nisan ve Ekim aylarında olmak üzere yılda iki defa yayımlanan Bilgi Dünyası dergisi üniversite ve araştırma kütüphaneleri ile birlikte, bilgibilim, bilgi hizmetleri, bilgi ve belge yönetimine ilişkin sorunları inceleyen ve çözüm önerileri sunan makaleleri yayımlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmamızda da Bilgi Dünyası dergisinde yayımlanan 104 makale ve 60 görüş bibliyometrik özellikleri açısından analiz edilmektedir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre yayımlandığı ilk yıldan bu yana geçen süre göz önüne alındığında son üç yılda yayımlanan hakemli makale sayısının diğer yıllara oranla daha yüksek oranda olduğu görülmüştür. Makalelerin konu dağılımı olarak ise çoğunlukla bilgi merkezleri ile ilgili olduğu saptanmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarında Bilgi Dünyası dergisi örneğinden hareketle Türkiye’deki kütüphanecilik alanında yapılan çalışmalara yönelik detaylı bir atıf analizi çalışmasının gerekliliği önerilmektedir.