Eve, Martin Paul and Priego, Ernesto (2017) Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? Triple C: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 15 (2), pp. 755-770. ISSN 1726-670X.
|
Text
867-3743-1-PB.pdf - Published Version of Record Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (381kB) | Preview |
Abstract
“Predatory publishing” refers to conditions under which gold open-access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed.
Metadata
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| School: | Birkbeck Faculties and Schools > Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Creative Arts, Culture and Communication |
| Depositing User: | Martin Eve |
| Date Deposited: | 13 Aug 2017 20:22 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Jun 2025 05:46 |
| URI: | https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/19356 |
Statistics
Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.
Archive Staff Only (login required)
