Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

View ORCID ProfileAnna Severin, View ORCID ProfileMichaela Strinzel, View ORCID ProfileMatthias Egger, Marc Domingo, View ORCID ProfileTiago Barros
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155
Anna Severin
1Doctoral researcher at the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the University of Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anna Severin
  • For correspondence: anna.severin@snf.ch
Michaela Strinzel
2Scientific collaborator at the SNSF, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michaela Strinzel
Matthias Egger
3President of the National Research Council of the SNSF and professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthias Egger
Marc Domingo
4Product development intern at Publons, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tiago Barros
5Product lead at Publons, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tiago Barros
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background While the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively well-understood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals. We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally?

Methods We matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric. For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour.

Results We matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews). The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively). The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions.

Conclusion The characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 11, 2020.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics
Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Marc Domingo, Tiago Barros
bioRxiv 2020.03.09.983155; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics
Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Marc Domingo, Tiago Barros
bioRxiv 2020.03.09.983155; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4091)
  • Biochemistry (8772)
  • Bioengineering (6487)
  • Bioinformatics (23356)
  • Biophysics (11756)
  • Cancer Biology (9154)
  • Cell Biology (13257)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7418)
  • Ecology (11376)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15095)
  • Genetics (10403)
  • Genomics (14014)
  • Immunology (9126)
  • Microbiology (22070)
  • Molecular Biology (8783)
  • Neuroscience (47395)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1421)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2482)
  • Physiology (3705)
  • Plant Biology (8054)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1433)
  • Synthetic Biology (2211)
  • Systems Biology (6017)
  • Zoology (1250)