Gray areas of academic publishing

References

1. Basken, P.
   (2017) Why Beallʼs list died. Chronicle of Higher Education. RetrievedMarch 31, 2020, fromhttps://www-chronicle-com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/article/Why-Beall-s-List-Died-/241171
   [Google Scholar]
2. Beall, J.
   (2010) Update: Predatory open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 12 (1), 50. 10.5260/chara.12.1.50
   https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.12.1.50 [Google Scholar]
3. Beall, J.
   (2012) Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489 (7415), 179–179. 10.1038/489179a
   https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a [Google Scholar]
4. Beall, J. , & DuBois, J. M.
   (2016) Scholars beware predatory publishers are increasingly targeting psychologists and other social scientists. Monitor on Psychology, 47 (4), 42.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Berger, M. , & Cirasella, J.
   (2015) Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76 (3), 132–135. 10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
   https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277 [Google Scholar]
6. Bohannon, J.
   (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review?Science, 342 (6154), 60–65. 10.1126/science.342.6154.60
   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60 [Google Scholar]
7. Butler, D.
   (2013) Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495 (7442), 433–435. 10.1038/495433a
   https://doi.org/10.1038/495433a [Google Scholar]
8. Canagarajah, A. S.
   (2002) A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 10.2307/j.ctt5hjn6c
   https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjn6c [Google Scholar]
9. Charles, M.
   (2013) English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge and S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes, (pp.137–154). Wiley-Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cobey, K. D. , Grudniewicz, A. , Lalu, M. M. , Rice, D. B. , Raffoul, H. , & Moher, D.
    (2019) Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open, 9 (3), 1–9. 10.1136/bmjopen‑2018‑026516
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516 [Google Scholar]
11. Crawford, W.
    (2011) Open access: what you need to know now. American Library Association.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Curry, M. J. , & Lillis, T. M.
    (2004) Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 663–688. 10.2307/3588284
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284 [Google Scholar]
13. Curry, M. J. , & Lillis, T. M.
    (Eds.) (2017) Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives, and pedagogies. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
14. da Silva, J. A. T.
    (2017) Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” lists must not be used: They are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate. Bibliothecae.it, 6 (1), 425–436.
    [Google Scholar]
15. da Silva, J. A. T. , & Tsigaris, P.
    (2020) Issues with criteria to create blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46 (1), 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Demir, S. B.
    (2018) Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?Journal of Informetrics, 12 (4), 1296–1311. 10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008 [Google Scholar]
17. Djuric, D.
    (2014) Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: The Romanian connection. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (1), 183–202. 10.1007/s11948‑014‑9521‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9521-4 [Google Scholar]
18. Ezinwa Nwagwu, W. , & Ojemeni, O.
    (2015) Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: A bibliometric study. Learned Publishing, 28 (1), 23–34. 10.1087/20150105
    https://doi.org/10.1087/20150105 [Google Scholar]
19. Fazel, I. , & Heng Hartse, J.
    (2017) Reconsidering “predatory” open access journals in an age of globalized English language academic publishing. In M. J. Curry & T. M. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing: Policies, practices, and pedagogies (pp.200–213). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783099245‑019
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783099245-019 [Google Scholar]
20. Flowerdew, J.
    (2013) English for research publication purposes. In B. Paltridge , & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.301–321). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Flowerdew, J.
    (2015) Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching, 48 (2), 250–262. 10.1017/S0261444812000523
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000523 [Google Scholar]
22. Hyland, K.
    (2015) Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hyland, K.
    (2020) Peer review: Objective screening or wishful thinking?The Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 1 (1), 51–65. 10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl [Google Scholar]
24. Kimotho, S. G.
    (2019) The storm around Beall’s List: A review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers. African Research Review, 13 (2), 1–11. 10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1
    https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1 [Google Scholar]
25. Kurt, S.
    (2018) Why do authors publish in predatory journals?. Learned Publishing, 31 (2), 141–147. 10.1002/leap.1150
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150 [Google Scholar]
26. McQuarrie, F. A. , Kondra, A. Z. , & Lamertz, K.
    (2020) Do tenure and promotion policies discourage publications in predatory journals?. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 51 (3), 165–181. 10.3138/jsp.51.3.01
    https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.51.3.01 [Google Scholar]
27. Millard, W. B.
    (2013) Some research wants to be free, some follows the money: Bogus journals complicate the open access movement. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 62 (2), 14A–20A. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.06.009 [Google Scholar]
28. Moher, D. , Shamseer, L. , Cobey, K. D. , Lalu, M. M. , Galipeau, J. , Avey, M. T. , … & Daniel, R.
    (2017) Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature, 549 (7670), 23–25. 10.1038/549023a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/549023a [Google Scholar]
29. Omobowale, A. O. , Akanle, O. , Adeniran, A. I. & Adegboyega, K.
    (2014) Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology, 62 (5), 666–684. 10.1177/0011392113508127
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113508127 [Google Scholar]
30. Paltridge, B.
    (2020) Writing for academic journals in the digital era. RELC Journal, 51 (1), 147–157. 10.1177/0033688219890359
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219890359 [Google Scholar]
31. Salager-Meyer, F.
    (2008) Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 , 121–132. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009 [Google Scholar]
32. Salager-Meyer, F.
    (2014) Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13 , 78–82. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.003 [Google Scholar]
33. Salehi, M. , Soltani, M. , Tamleh, H. , & Teimournezhad, S.
    (2020) Publishing in predatory open access journals: Authors’ perspectives. Learned Publishing, 33 (2), 89–95. 10.1002/leap.1261
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1261 [Google Scholar]
34. Shehata, A. M. K. , & Elgllab, M. F. M.
    (2018) Where Arab social science and humanities scholars choose to publish: Falling in the predatory journals trap. Learned Publishing, 31 (3), 222–229. 10.1002/leap.1167
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1167 [Google Scholar]
35. Shen, C. , & Björk, B.
    (2015) ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13 , 230–245. 10.1186/s12916‑015‑0469‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 [Google Scholar]
36. Siler, K.
    (2020) Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71 (1), 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Soler, J. , & Cooper, A.
    (2019) Unexpected emails to submit your work: Spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers. Publications, 7 (1), 7. 10.3390/publications7010007
    https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010007 [Google Scholar]
38. Swales, J.
    (1996) Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola , & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp.45–58). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.41.06swa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.06swa [Google Scholar]
39. Wilson, K.
    (2013) Librarian vs. (open access) predator: An interview with Jeffrey Beall. Serials Review, 39 (2), 125–128. 10.1080/00987913.2013.10765505
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10765505 [Google Scholar]
40. Xia, J. , Harmon, J. L. , Connolly, K. G. , Donnelly, R. M. , Anderson, M. R. & Howard, H. A.
    (2015) Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (7), 1406–1417. 10.1002/asi.23265
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265 [Google Scholar]