Examination of academic librarian websites in Anglophonic countries to assess the integrity of information related to predatory publishing

References

• Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. (2017). Academic libraries and quality: An analysis and evaluation framework. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1316749
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
   Google Scholar
• Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brantley, S., Bruns, T. A., & Duffin, K. I. (2017). Librarians in transition: Scholarly communication support as a developing core competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2017.1340718
   Google Scholar
• Bülow, W., & Helgesson, G. (2019). Criminalization of scientific misconduct. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 22(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceylan, G., Anderson, I. A., & Wood, W. (2023). Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(4), e2216614120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216614120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, J. S. G., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakić, N., Trtovac, A., & Andonovski, J. (2020). Changing the role of the librarian – from a cataloguer to an educator. Infotheca, 20(1–2), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.18485/infotheca.2020.20.1_2.2
   Google Scholar
• De Paor, S., & Heravi, B. (2020). Information literacy and fake news: How the field of librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the academic library: A reflection on roles, relevancy and relationships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2014.911194
   Google Scholar
• Dony, C., Raskinet, M., Renaville, F., Simon, S., & Thirion, P. (2020). How reliable and useful is Cabell’s blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly, 30(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339
   Google Scholar
• Eve, M. P., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, M. A. (1997). Misinformation on the Internet: Applying evaluation skills to online information. Emergency Librarian, 24, 9–14.
   Google Scholar
• Froelich, T. J. (2019). The role of pseudo-cognitive authorities and self-deception in the dissemination of fake news. Open Information Science, 3(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2019-0009
   Google Scholar
• Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogeveen, S., Sarafoglou, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). Laypeople can predict which social-science studies will be replicated successfully. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920919667
   Google Scholar
• IAP (The Interacademy Partnership) (2022, March). Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. https://www.interacademies.org/publication/predatory-practices-report-English
   Google Scholar
• Inouye, K., & Mills, D. (2021). Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the “predatory publishing” discourse. Learned Publishing, 34(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlova, N. A., & Fisher, K. E. (2013). A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour. Information Research, 18(1), 573.
   Google Scholar
• Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, W.-Y C. (2020). Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: From the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case. Scientometrics, 123(1), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez, E., & Gaspard, C. S. (2020). Predatory publishing and the academic librarian: Developing tools to make decisions. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 39(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2020.1693205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merriam-Webster. (2023). Misinformation. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation
   Google Scholar
• Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2021). Problematizing “predatory publishing”: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojala, M., Reynolds, R., & Johnson, K. G. (2020). Predatory journal challenges and responses. The Serials Librarian, 78(1–4), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894
   Google Scholar
• Oliphant, T. (2019). The self and others: Revisiting information needs and libraries as public, social institutions in a post-truth world. Open Information Science, 3(1), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2019-0018
   Google Scholar
• Olivarez, J. D., 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), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruokolainen, H., & Widén, G. (2020). Conceptualising misinformation in the context of asylum seekers. Information Processing & Management, 57(3), 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoulas, J. M., & De Groote, S. L. (2023). Faculty perceptions, use, and needs of library resource and services in a public research university. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(1), 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sewell, C., & Kingsley, D. (2017). Developing the 21st century academic librarian: The Research Support Ambassador Programme. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(2–3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1323766
   Google Scholar
• Silver, A. (2017). Controversial website that lists ‘predatory’ publishers shuts down. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21328
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, B. C. (2006). On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: A critical research perspective. Informing Science Journal, 9, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.28945/473
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022a). Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2039242
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022b). Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist. Open Information Science, 6(1), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0136
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Kendall, G. (2023a). Academia should stop using Beall’s Lists and review their use in previous studies. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics, 4(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Kendall, G. (2023b). Mis(-classification) of 17,721 journals by an artificial intelligence predatory journal detector. Publishing Research Quarterly, 39(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09956-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Kimotho, S. G. (2022). Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(3), 102418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Nazarovets, S. (2022). Are some academic librarians providing misinformation about predatory publishing? SocArXiv, (December 25, 2022). https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2xscw
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Moradzadeh, M., Adjei, K. O. K., Owusu-Ansah, C. M., Balehegn, M., Faúndez, E. I., Janodia, M. D., & Al-Khatib, A. (2022). An integrated paradigm shift to deal with “predatory” publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(1), 102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Moradzadeh, M., Yamada, Y., Dunleavy, D. J., & Tsigaris, P. (2023). Cabells’ Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(1), 102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Christian, L., Jones, M., McCabe, M., Smith, M., & Fish, A. (2017). Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsigaris, P., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Why blacklists are not reliable: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 102266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dalen, H. P. (2021). How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1675–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x
   Google Scholar
• Yamada, Y., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022). A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity, 56(6), 4075–4087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3
   Google Scholar