IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v75y2024i4p395-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Abalkina

Abstract

This study presents and explains the phenomenon of indexjacking, which involves the systematic infiltration of hijacked journals into international indexing databases, with Scopus being one of the most infiltrated among these databases. Through an analysis of known lists of hijacked journals, the study identified at least 67 hijacked journals that have penetrated Scopus since 2013. Of these, 33 journals indexed unauthorized content in Scopus and 23 compromised the homepage link in the journal's profile, while 11 did both. As of September 2023, 41 hijacked journals are still compromising the data of legitimate journals in Scopus. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus is a challenge for scientific integrity due to the legitimization of unreliable papers that have not undergone peer review and compromises the quality of the Scopus database. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus has far‐reaching effects. Papers published in these journals may be cited, and unauthorized content from these journals in Scopus is thus imported into other databases, including ORCID and the WHO COVID‐19 Research Database. This poses a particular challenge for research evaluation in those countries, where cloned versions of approved journals may be used to acquire publications and verifying their authenticity can be difficult.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Abalkina, 2024. "Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(4), pages 395-422, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:75:y:2024:i:4:p:395-422
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24855
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24855?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Amirbekova & Timur Narbaev & Meruyert Kussaiyn, 2022. "The Research Environment in a Developing Economy: Reforms, Patterns, and Challenges in Kazakhstan," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Anna Severin & Nicola Low, 2019. "Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(8), pages 1123-1124, November.
    3. Fei Shu & Wei Quan & Bikun Chen & Junping Qiu & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1683-1695, March.
    4. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    5. Mehdi Dadkhah & Tomasz Maliszewski & Vyacheslav V. Lyashenko, 2016. "An approach for preventing the indexing of hijacked journal articles in scientific databases," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 298-303, April.
    6. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    7. Andrea Cortegiani & Andrea Manca & Manoj Lalu & David Moher, 2020. "Inclusion of predatory journals in Scopus is inflating scholars’ metrics and advancing careers," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(1), pages 3-4, January.
    8. Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5019-5077, June.
    9. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182.
    10. Declan Butler, 2013. "Sham journals scam authors," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 421-422, March.
    11. Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Correction to: Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5079-5079, June.
    12. Matveeva, Nataliya & Sterligov, Ivan & Yudkevich, Maria, 2021. "The effect of Russian University Excellence Initiative on publications and collaboration patterns," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    13. Barbara Good & Niki Vermeulen & Brigitte Tiefenthaler & Erik Arnold, 2015. "Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 91-105.
    14. Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec, 2022. "Retraction Note to: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1667-1667, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Moroz, 2024. "What does terroir mean? A science mapping of a multidimensional concept," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 889-913, September.
    2. Ekaterina Dyachenko & Iurii Agafonov & Katerina Guba & Alexander Gelvikh, 2024. "Independent Russian medical science: is there any?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5577-5597, September.
    3. Christensen, Mark & Fahlevi, Heru & Indriani, Mirna & Syukur, Muhammad, 2024. "Deciding to be ignored: Why accounting scholars use dubious quality research outlets in a neocolonial context," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Denis Kosyakov & Andrey Guskov, 2022. "Reasons and consequences of changes in Russian research assessment policies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4609-4630, August.
    5. Aleskerov, F. & Kazachinskaya, A. & Karabekyan, D. & Semina, A. & Yakuba, V., 2021. "Economic journals of Russia, their characteristics and network analysis," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 170-182.
    6. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    7. Demir, Selcuk Besir, 2018. "Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1296-1311.
    8. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    9. Libor Ansorge, 2023. "The right to reject an unwanted citations: do we need it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4147-4150, July.
    10. Briony Swire-Thompson & David Lazer, 2022. "Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 124-135, March.
    11. Satish Kumar & Weng Marc Lim & Riya Sureka & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Umesh Bamel, 2024. "Balanced scorecard: trends, developments, and future directions," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(8), pages 2397-2439, August.
    12. Dima Jamali & Georges Samara & Lokman I. Meho, 2024. "Determinants of research productivity and efficiency among the Arab world’s accredited business schools," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2511-2543, December.
    13. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Aihua Zhu & Samah Ali Mohsen Mofreh & Sultan Salem, 2023. "The Application of Language Proficiency Scales in Education Context: A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    15. Solomon, David J. & Laakso, Mikael & Björk, Bo-Christer, 2013. "A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 642-650.
    16. Khalid Ahmed Al-Ansari & Ahmet Faruk Aysan, 2021. "More than ten years of Blockchain creation: How did we use the technology and which direction is the research heading? [Plus de dix ans de création Blockchain : Comment avons-nous utilisé la techno," Working Papers hal-03343048, HAL.
    17. Doyle, Cathal, 2020. "How Can I Share My Work? A Review of the Open Access Policies of IS Journals - presented at HICSS 2021," OSF Preprints xr8mv_v1, Center for Open Science.
    18. Qi Mu & Fabrizio Aimar, 2022. "How Are Historical Villages Changed? A Systematic Literature Review on European and Chinese Cultural Heritage Preservation Practices in Rural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Eduardo José Melo Lins & Rachel Perez Palha & Maria do Carmo Martins Sobral & Adolpho Guido de Araújo & Érika Alves Tavares Marques, 2024. "Application of Building Information Modelling in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Systematic Review and Future Trends Supported by a Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-55, October.
    20. Paola Alzate & Juan F. Mejía-Giraldo & Isabella Jurado & Sara Hernandez & Alexandra Novozhenina, 2024. "Research perspectives on youth social entrepreneurship: strategies, economy, and innovation," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:75:y:2024:i:4:p:395-422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.