↓ Skip to main content

Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2015.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary M. Christopher, Karen M. Young

Abstract

Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Paraguay 1 <1%
North Macedonia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 21 19%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Arts and Humanities 7 6%
Computer Science 7 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 35 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,575,406
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#304
of 7,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,967
of 270,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.