EDITORIAL
The challenges of scientometric
studies of predatory publishing
Ludo Waltman1
and Vincent Larivière2
1Editor-in-Chief, Études scientifiques quantitatives
2Associate Editor, Études scientifiques quantitatives
This issue of Quantitative Science Studies features the article “Predatory publishing in Scopus:
Evidence on cross-country differences,” coauthored by Vít Macháček and Martin Srholec.
Based on the Scopus database, this article studies how likely different countries are to publish
in so-called predatory journals. Journals suspected to be predatory are identified using the
well-known (and controversial) list of potentially predatory publishers and journals compiled
by former librarian Jeffrey Beall.
The article by Macháček and Srholec has a special history. Originally published in the
journal Scientometrics (Macháček & Srholec, 2021), the article was retracted by the Editor-
in-Chief following a complaint from the publisher Frontiers and a subsequent postpublication
peer-review process (Anonymous, 2022). Two reasons were provided by the Editor-in-Chief
of Scientometrics for the retraction: lack of a control group and focus on four publication
languages (Arabic, English, French, and Spanish). The retraction led to considerable contro-
versy (Oransky, 2021). The authors disagreed with the retraction (Srholec, 2022), and a sub-
stantial number of members of the Distinguished Reviewers Board of Scientometrics and
recipients of the Derek de Solla Price Medal expressed their concerns in a letter (Abramo,
Boyack et al., 2022; see also the editorial by Zhang, 2022). We also signed this letter.
Following the retraction by Scientometrics, Macháček and Srholec reclaimed the copyright
of their article, enabling them to submit their work elsewhere. They decided to submit their
article to Quantitative Science Studies. As editors of Quantitative Science Studies, nous
requested Macháček and Srholec to address some weaknesses that we identified in their
article. En particulier, we felt that the limitations of Beall’s list needed to be emphasized more
strongly and that there was a need to better explain how suspected predatory journals may end
up being indexed in the Scopus database. Macháček and Srholec addressed these issues by
making a number of improvements to their article. Based on our editorial assessment, ces
improvements were sufficient to meet the standards of Quantitative Science Studies, and we
therefore decided to accept the article for publication in the journal. Although the article
published in Quantitative Science Studies is different from the article originally published in
Scientometrics, we emphasize that the changes made do not relate to the reasons provided for
retracting the article.
We acknowledge that there are different views on predatory publishing in general, and on
Beall’s list in particular. We therefore invite anyone who wishes to comment on the article by
Macháček and Srholec to submit their views to Quantitative Science Studies. Commentaries
should have a length of at most 1500 words. They will be considered for publication in a
future issue of the journal.
un accès ouvert
journal
Citation: Waltman, L., & Larivière, V.
(2022). The challenges of scientometric
studies of predatory publishing.
Études scientifiques quantitatives, 3(3),
857–858. https://est ce que je.org/10.1162
/qss_e_00214
EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00214
Auteur correspondant:
Ludo Waltman
waltmanlr@cwts.leidenuniv.nl
droits d'auteur: © 2022 Ludo Waltman and
Vincent Larivière. Published under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International (CC PAR 4.0) Licence.
La presse du MIT
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
3
3
8
5
7
2
0
5
8
4
3
4
q
s
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
1
4
p
d
.
/
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
The challenges of scientometric studies of predatory publishing
RÉFÉRENCES
Abramo, G., Boyack, K., Burrell, Q. L., Campanario, J.. M., Chinchilla-
Rodríguez, Z., Costas, R., … Waltman, L. (2022). Retraction of
Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differ-
ences lacks justification. Scientometrics (in press).
Anonymous. (2022). Retraction note to: Predatory publishing in
Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics,
127(3), 1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04149-w
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M.. (2021). RETRACTED ARTICLE: Preda-
tory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences.
Scientometrics, 126(3), 1897–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-020-03852-4, PubMed: 33583977
Oransky, je. (2021). Authors object after Springer Nature journal
cedes to publisher Frontiers’ demand for retraction. Retraction
Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/07/authors-object
-after-springer-nature-journal-cedes-to-publisher-frontiers
-demand-for-retraction/
Srholec, M.. (2022). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on
cross-country differences. https://vedavyzkum.cz/ blogy-a
-komentare/martin-srholec/predatory-publishing-in-scopus
-evidence-on-cross-country-differences
Zhang, L. (2022). Editorial response letter to Abramo et al. Sciento-
metrics (in press).
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
3
3
8
5
7
2
0
5
8
4
3
4
q
s
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
1
4
p
d
/
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
9
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Études scientifiques quantitatives
858
