1. bookVolume 5 (2019): Edizione 1 (June 2019)
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2450-7563
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
access type Accesso libero

Moderation by Researchgate Related to Comments on “Predatory” Publishing Practices

Pubblicato online: 07 Oct 2019
Volume & Edizione: Volume 5 (2019) - Edizione 1 (June 2019)
Pagine: 1 - 8
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2450-7563
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
Abstract

The intersection between academia and social media is gradually overlapping. The ability to vent personal and professional discord online, either through blogs or social media, has had both positive and negative consequences on academic communication, with the public and/or in the public domain. ResearchGate (RG) is one of the most popular academic social media sites that allows commenting, either in response to published papers or to questions that are posed on that platform. This paper explores an important aspect of a high-profile, topical and controversial 2017 paper (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137) that had based itself on a flawed blacklist created by Jeffrey Beall. In that paper, unfounded claims were made regarding financial rewards as remuneration schemes at a “small business school” in Canada related to publishing papers in “predatory” journals, i.e., in open access journals that were blacklisted by Beall. Based on those claims, Pyne used RG as a platform to target academics at his research institute. Pyne could have, but did not, use the scholarly platform to engage with his colleagues in an academic debate about his controversial findings, causing personal disrepute on three occasions. Consequently, RG was contacted with a claim of defamation on each occasion. Within hours of each claim, Pyne’s comments were deleted. In early May, RG also erased his social media account. The issue of actual or potential insults in the public domain, such as on blogs, is rarely discussed, much less related to academic social media sites like RG. This case study, and the issues discussed herein related to social media more broadly, will be useful for academics to better navigate increasingly challenging publishing waters.

Keywords

BOUTRON, I., RAVAUD, P. (2018) Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115(11): 2613-2619. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.171075511510.1073/pnas.1710755115Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

COPIELLO, S. (2019) Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w10.1007/s11192-019-03124-wApri DOISearch in Google Scholar

COPIELLO, S., BONIFACI, P. (2019) ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study. Scientometrics 119: 1255–1262. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03063-610.1007/s11192-019-03063-6Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

FIHN, S.D. (2019). Combating misrepresentation of research findings. JAMA Network Open 2(5): e192553-e192553. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.255310.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2553Search in Google Scholar

KHAN, M.S., LATEEF, N., SIDDIQI, T.J., REHMAN, K.A., ALNAIMAT, S., KHAN, S.U., RIAZ, H., MURAD, H., MANDROLA, J., DOUKKY, R., KRASUSKI, R.A. (2019) Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open 2(5): e192622-e192622. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.262210.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2622Search in Google Scholar

PYNE, D. (2017) The rewards of predatory publishing at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 48(3): 137-160. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.13710.3138/jsp.48.3.137Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A. (2017) ResearchGate projects: unregulated academic social media. Social Communication 1(15): 6-13. DOI: 10.1515/sc-2017-000110.1515/sc-2017-0001Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A., DOBRÁNSZKI, J. (2018) Editors moving forward: stick to academic basics, maximize transparency and respect, and enforce the rules. Recenti Progressi in Medicina 109(5): 263-266. DOI: 10.1701/2902.2924410.1701/2902.29244Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A., & TSIGARIS, P. (2018a) What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(6): 781-792. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.01710.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A, & TSIGARIS, P. (2018b). Academics must list all publications on their CV. KOME 6(1): 94-99. DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2018.1610.17646/KOME.2018.16Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A, & TSIGARIS, P. (2019). How hyped media and misleading editorials can influence impressions about Beall’s lists of “predatory” publications. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society (in press) DOI: 10.1108/JICES-06-2018-005910.1108/JICES-06-2018-0059Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TSIGARIS, P. (2019). Letter to the editors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50(2): 139–142. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.50.2.0510.3138/jsp.50.2.05Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TSIGARIS, P., TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A. (2019) Did the research faculty at a small Canadian business school publish in “predatory” venues? This depends on the publishing blacklist. Publications 7: 35. DOI: 10.3390/publications702003510.3390/publications7020035Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

TURRENTINE, M. (2017) It’s all how you “spin” it: interpretive bias in research findings in the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstetrics & Gynecology 129(2): 239-242.10.1097/AOG.0000000000001818Search in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo