bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.03.09.983155

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

Severin, A.·Strinzel, M.·Egger, M.·Domingo, M.·Barros, T. F.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundWhile the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively well-understood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals. We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally? MethodsWe matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric. For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour. ResultsWe matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews). The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively). The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions. ConclusionThe characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Egger, M., Domingo, M., Barros, T. F.. 2020-03-11. Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Prevalence of scabies and its associated factors among school age children in Arba Minch zuria district, Southern Ethiopia, 2018.

BackgroundScabies, a common human skin disease with a prevalence range of 0.2% to 71.4% in the world. It can have considerable impact on general health leading to illness and death not only through direct effect of its infestation and as a result of secondary bacterial infection. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of scabies and its associated factors among school age children in Arba Minch zuria district, Gamo zone, Southern Ethiopia. MethodsA community based cross sectional study was carried out in 845 school age children from February 20 to March 30, 2018. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select study populations. Logistic regression an analysis was used to identify factors associated with scabies. Findings were presented using 95% CI of Crude Odds Ratios (COR) and Adjusted Odds Ratios (AOR. To declare statistical significance, p-value less than 0.05 was used. ResultA total of 825 children participated in the study with response rate of 97.6%. The overall prevalence of scabies was 16.4% [95% CI: 13.9%, 18.9%]. overcrowding index, family history of itching in the past two weeks, wealth index, knowledge of scabies, climatic zone, frequency of washing body, frequency of washing clothes, finger nails cutting practice, history of skin contact with scabies patient, washing hair more than once weekly, and sharing of clothes were significantly associated scabies disease. ConclusionIn conclusion, the prevalence of scabies in Arba Minch lies at 16.4% in the global scabies range 0.2% to 71.4%. The prevalence was highest in highlands followed by midland and then lowland. This represents a significant scabies burden which we recommend warrants health service intervention. Authors summaryScabies, a common human skin disease with a prevalence range of 0.2% to 71.4% in the world. It can have considerable impact on general health leading to illness and death not only through direct effect of its infestation and as a result of secondary bacterial infection. Conducting a research on this neglected tropical disease would contribute in designing a policies and strategies on prevention and control measures in the study area. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of scabies and its associated factors among school age children in Arba Minch zuria district, Gamo zone, Southern Ethiopia.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Sorry, we're open: Golden Open Access and inequality in the natural sciences

Global Open Access (GOA) journals make research more accessible and therefore more citable; however, the publication fees associated with GOA journals can be costly and therefore not a viable option for many researchers seeking high-impact publication outlets. In this study, I collect metadata from 237 open-access natural science journals and analyze them in terms of Article Processing Charges (APC), Impact Factor (IF), Eigen Factor (EF), citability, and country of publisher. The results of this study provide evidence that with IF, EF, and citability all increase as APC increases, and each of these metrics are higher in publishers from developed countries in comparison to developing countries. Implications of these trends are discussed in regards to natural sciences and inequality within the global scientific community.

scientific communication and education↗