Description of the topic:This work reviews and compares how questionable social sciences and humanities (SSH) journals are identified in correspondence with evaluation of the publication channels related to the performance-based research funding. The focus of the STSM will lie in a cross-country comparison. The current lists of SSH journals are analysed and compared from the aspects of predatory and legitimate OA. Communicating about questionable publishing to the research community is investigated and compared. It will be also reviewed, how the yearly number of publications in questionable SSH journals has evolved, and on the other hand, how publishing in legitimate OA journals has evolved. As a result, a description of best practices and challenges of identifying questionable journals and communicating about them will be prepared.
Objectives:
- Investigate and compare how questionable social sciences and humanities journals are identified
- Compare the current lists of social sciences and humanities journals from the aspects of predatory and legitimate OA
- Review and compare how information on questionability is communicated to the experts participating in the evaluation of publication channels in correspondence with performance-based research funding and further to the research community
- Find out how the yearly number of publications in questionable SSH journals has evolved, and on the other hand, how publishing in legitimate OA journals has evolved
Results:
- A description of best practices and challenges of identifying questionable journals and communicating about them
Special criteria for this STSM:The applicant should have knowledge on questionable publishing and access to the data needed
Practical details:
Working group: WG3 (databases and uses of data for understanding SSH research)
Duration: 2 weeks
Location: University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Contact: Tim Engels (tim.engels@uantwerpen.be), Raf Guns (raf.guns@uantwerpen.be)