Thursday, June 1, 2023
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting
Best Retirement Wishes
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Top News
No Result
View All Result
Best Retirement Wishes
Home Editor's Pick

Another reason to avoid MDPI journals

by
May 8, 2023
in Editor's Pick
0
Another reason to avoid MDPI journals
0
SHARES
2
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

They’ll go after you if you call them predatory. From Retraction Watch:

A 2021 article that found journals from the open-access publisher MDPI had characteristics of predatory journals has been retracted and replaced with a version that softens its conclusions about the company. MDPI is still not satisfied, however.

Related posts

I try to assign a number to Krugman’s estimate of the value of not commuting and come up short

May 23, 2023
Some thoughts on non-probability, aka opt-in, survey panels

Some thoughts on non-probability, aka opt-in, survey panels

May 18, 2023

The article, “Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI),” was published in Research Evaluation. It has been cited 20 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

Here is the abstract of the article in Research Evaluation:

The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all suggest they may be predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals.

More from Retraction Watch:

Soon after the paper was published in July 2021, MDPI issued a “comment” about the article that responded to Oviedo García’s analysis point by point. The comment called out “the misrepresentation of MDPI, as well as concerns around the accuracy of the data and validity of the research methodology.”

Here is the graph that MDPI is using to suggest “that MDPI is in-line with other publishers, and that its self-citation index is lower than that of many others; on the other hand, its self-citation index is higher than some others.”

From this graph you can see market share in publishing: Elsevier, Springer, Informa (Taylor and Francis) and Wiley Blackwell are the big 4. The next two largest publishers are the Institution of Electronics and Electrical Engineers and MDPI. There are a ton of self-cites in Elsevier journals (the self-citation numbers are at the publisher level). MDPI is comparing itself to, say, the Elsevier and Springer placement on the vertical axis. What this analysis is missing is quality control. There are not many MDPI articles that you’d want to reference because they are mostly low quality. So, self-citation at lower level journals is some evidence of manipulation of journal rankings. 

The solution, it seems to me, is to stop trying to label MDPI (and Frontiers) as predatory. Just call them something else like “publishers that manipulate journal rankings and take people’s money in exchange for a shaky review process that ultimately leads to publication.”  

Previous Post

Whenever I think about quitting @twitter because of Leon I see something like this

Next Post

Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional? What about Default?

Next Post

Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional? What about Default?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

RECOMMENDED NEWS

Mill at a Loss

Mill at a Loss

3 months ago
Altruism vs. Materialism in Market Exchange

Altruism vs. Materialism in Market Exchange

3 months ago
Env-Econ Book Review: The Fishermen and the Dragon

Env-Econ Book Review: The Fishermen and the Dragon

3 months ago

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on For a New Liberty at 50

4 months ago

BROWSE BY CATEGORIES

  • Economy
  • Editor's Pick
  • Stock
  • Top News
Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

POPULAR NEWS

  • How Can We Restore Freedom and Sound Money in the US and the UK? Some Ideas

    How Can We Restore Freedom and Sound Money in the US and the UK? Some Ideas

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • How not to answer the question “Why are carbon taxes unpopular with policymakers and politicians?”

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • I went to 2+ climate change sessions at the ASSA meetings

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Just Say No to the New Forever War

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Mises Institute Awards

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Disclaimer

BestRetirementWishes.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively "The Company") do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Recent News

  • Biden‐​McCarthy Deal a Modest Start
  • Conflict Over a “Citi Bike” Illustrates Popularity of a New Mobility Alternative
  • Understanding Relationships between Money Supply and Liquidity

Category

  • Economy
  • Editor's Pick
  • Stock
  • Top News

Recent News

Biden‐​McCarthy Deal a Modest Start

Biden‐​McCarthy Deal a Modest Start

May 31, 2023

Conflict Over a “Citi Bike” Illustrates Popularity of a New Mobility Alternative

May 31, 2023
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting

© 2021 BestRetirementWishes. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Email Whitelisting
  • Home 1
  • Privacy Policy
  • suspicious-engagement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Thank You

© 2021 BestRetirementWishes. All Rights Reserved.