Scientometrics article about predatory publishing is retracted

Written by Anonymous Author in Jeffrey Beall,Peer Review,Predatory Publishing 

Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec (2021) Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences, Scientometrics, 126, 1897-1921 has been retracted due to:

  • Errors in Analyses
  • Errors in Methods
  • Unreliable Results

In this article we provide a few more details about this retraction.

Figure 1: Notice from Retraction Watch

Article Abstract

To provide some details about the paper that has been retracted, this is its abstract:

“Predatory publishing represents a major challenge to scholarly communication. This paper maps the infiltration of journals suspected of predatory practices into the citation database Scopus and examines cross-country differences in the propensity of scholars to publish in such journals. Using the names of “potential, possible, or probable” predatory journals and publishers on Beall’s lists, we derived the ISSNs of 3,293 journals from Ulrichsweb and searched Scopus with them. 324 of journals that appear both in Beall’s lists and Scopus with 164 thousand articles published over 2015–2017 were identified. Analysis of data for 172 countries in 4 fields of research indicates that there is a remarkable heterogeneity. In the most affected countries, including Kazakhstan and Indonesia, around 17% of articles fall into the predatory category, while some other countries have no predatory articles whatsoever. Countries with large research sectors at the medium level of economic development, especially in Asia and North Africa, tend to be most susceptible to predatory publishing. Arab, oil-rich and/or eastern countries also appear to be particularly vulnerable. Policymakers and stakeholders in these and other developing countries need to pay more attention to the quality of research evaluation.“

Retraction Details

Figure 2: The retracted article, image from the Scientometrics web site

Retraction Watch recently reported that an article published in Scientometrics has been retracted. The reasons for retracting the article were given as, Error in Analyses, Error in Methods and Unreliable Results.

The retracted article is

 

The article was published on 7 Feb 2021 and retracted on 6 September 2021.

The retraction notice can be seen in Figure 3. It is given in the form of another paper, with its own DOI.

Figure 3: The retraction notice. Image taken from Scientometrics web site

Further details of the retraction

If you look at the retraction notice (see Figure 3, and the associated URL), you’ll see the reasons why the paper was retracted.

The retraction notice is not that long but it mentions that some of the findings are unreliable and that “Post-publication peer review indicated the article includes statements about authors from some geographic regions which are unjustified in the generality of the conclusions.“

Reference is made to the regression analysis being incomplete and that the Scopus database cannot be considered a control group.

Finally it states that the authors disagree with the retraction but they have been offered the opportunity to submit a reworked manuscript, which will undergo peer review.

Final Comment

We have purposefully not given any comment, or view, on the retraction of this paper. We do not know the full details, were not involved in the peer review and have no insights into the issues that were found.

However, we did want to report it on this blog though, as it is a paper about predatory publishing and we thought it was worth mentioning.

Please consider supporting us by becoming a patron

Thank you for reading this article. If you would like to support the work we do, please consider becoming one of our patrons.

With your support, it will enable us to deploy some of the ideas that we have, and will also enable us to work more closely together. As an example, we will look at journals and/or publishers that you propose. You can read more here.

Recent Posts