Türk Akademisyenlerin Yağmacı Dergilere İlişkin Görüşleri: Bir Nitel Betimsel Çalışma

Öz

Son yıllarda bilimsel etik kurallarını açık erişim maskesi altında istismar eden yağmacı dergilerin sayısında büyük bir artış olmuştur. Bu anlamda, bilim etiği ve bilimsel iletişim mantığını korumak adına bu dergilere ilişkin araştırmacıların farkındalık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi bir ihtiyaç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu ihtiyaca hizmet etmek için, bu çalışma Türk akademisyenlerin yağmacı dergi kavramından ne anladıklarını betimlemeyi ve onları bu tür dergilerde yayın yapmak zorunda bırakan nedenleri ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Temel nitel betimsel deseninin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada edinilen nitel verilerin analizi sonucunda Türk akademisyenlerin yağmacı dergilere yönelik genel özellikleri tanıma anlamında bir farkındalık düzeyine sahip oldukları ve belirttikleri özelliklerin alanyazın ile örtüştüğü görülmüştür. Türk akademisyenleri bu dergilerde yayın yapmaya iten unsurlar konusunda, yine alanyazındakine benzer şekilde “yayınla ya da yok ol” baskısının etkisinin yoğun bir şekilde hissedildiği ve akademisyenlerin akademik teşvik ile doçentlik başvuru ölçütlerini sağlamak adına bu dergilere yayın gönderme gibi bir eğilimlerinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yağmacı yayın,yağmacı dergi,bilim etiği

Perceptions of Turkish Academicians about Predatory Journals: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Abstract

Over the recent years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of predatory journals exploiting the norms of publishing ethics under the disguise of open access publishing. In this essence, there is a need to examine the degree to which researchers are aware of such journals to protect science ethics and science communication. To this end, this study aims to describe Turkish academicians’ understandings of predatory journals and identify their reasons to publish in them. The results from this basic qualitative descriptive study indicated that Turkish academicians had a certain degree of awareness about these journals, and the characteristics they mentioned align with the literature. Given the reasons of academicians to publish in these journals, the results revealed that Turkish academicians strongly felt the “publish or perish” pressure and had a tendency to publish in these journals to meet the criteria for academic incentives and associate professorship applications.

Keywords

• Predatory publishing,predatory journals,science ethics

References

1. Akça, S. ve Akbulut, M. (2018). Türkiye’deki yağmacı dergiler: Beall listesi üzerine bir araştırma. Bilgi Dünyası, 19(2), 255-274. doi:10.15612/BD.2018.695
2. Anderson, R. (2017, Temmuz 25). Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: A review [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/
3. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179. doi:10.1038/489179a
4. Beall, J. (2016a). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(10), 1511-1513. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
5. Beall, J. (2016b). Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. International Higher Education, (86), 2-3. Erişim adresi: https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/viewFile/9358/8368
6. Beall, J. (2017, 7 Ağustos). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2017 [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://scholarlyoa.com/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/
7. Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433. doi: 10.1038/495433a
8. Bivens-Tatum, W. (2014). Reactionary rhetoric against open access publishing. tripleC:

9. Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(2), 441-446.
10. Conn, V. S. (2015). Paying the price for open access. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(1), 3–5. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914554257
11. Clark, A. M., & Thompson , D. R. (2017). Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(11), 2499-2501. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13090
12. Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14. Erişim adresi: http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf
13. Cress, P. E. (2017). Are predatory conferences the dark side of the open access movement? Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 37(6), 734-738. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjw247.
14. Christopher, M. M. & Young, K. M. (2015). Awareness of “predatory” open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2, 22. doi:10.3389/fvets.2015.00022
15. Demir, S. B. (2018). Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2053-2068. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4
16. Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333(6043), 702–703. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
17. Gasparyan A. Y. (2013). Selecting your editorial board: Maintaining standards. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 28(7), 972–973. doi:10.3346/jkms.2013.28.7.972
18. Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Diyanova, S. N., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(8), 1010-1016. doi: 10.3346/kjms.2015.30.8.1010
19. Jansen, P. A., & Forget, P. M. (2012). Predatory publishers and plagiarism prevention. Science, 336(6087):1380. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6087.1380-a.
20. Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing. 31(2), 141-147. doi: 10.1002/leap.1150
21. Lambert, V., & Lambert, C. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256. Erişim adresi: https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/5805
22. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Meadows, A. (2017, 5 Aralık). Illegitimate journals and how to stop them: An interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet. org/2017/12/05/illegitimate-journals-stop-interview-kelly-cobey-larissa-shamseer/
24. Mouton, J., ve Valentine, A. (2017). The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals. South African Journal of Science, 113(7-8), 1–9. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010
25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. ThousandOaks: Sage.
26. Misra, D.. P., Ravindran, V., Wakhlu, A., Sharma, A., Agarwal, V., & Negi, V. S. (2017).
27. Publishing in black and white: the relevance of listing of scientific journals. Rheumatol International, 37(11), 1773-1778. doi: 10.1007/s00296-017-3830-2
28. Meadows, A. (2017, 5 Aralık). Illegitimate journals and how to stop them: An interview with
29. Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/12/05/illegitimate-journals-stop-interview-kelly-cobey-larissa-shamseer/
30. Oermann, M. H., Conklin, J. L., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Edie, A. H., & Budinger, S. C. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(6), 624-632. Erişim adresi: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7035/dc08ea5d07d5d76166fa1da375e2e6e9ac71.pdf
31. Olijhoek, T., & Tennant, J. (2018, 25 Eylül). The "problem" of predatory publishing remains a relatively small one and should not be allowed to defame open access. [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/09/25/the-problem-of-predatory-publishing-remains-a-relatively-small-one-and-should-not-be-allowed-to-defame-open-access/
32. Pyne, D. (2017). The rewards of predatory publications at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 48(3), 137–160.Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp.48.3.137.
33. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-340. Erişim adresi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/1098-240X%28200008%2923%3A4%3C334%3A%3AAID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO%3B2-G
34. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362
35. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., ... & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
36. Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1-15. Erişim adresi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
37. Simón, A. (2016). Pitfalls of predatory journals: A personal account. Comprehensive Psychology, 5, 1–5. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2165222816631691
38. Strinzel M, Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio, 10(3), 10:e00411-19, Erişim adresi: https://mbio.asm.org/content/mbio/10/3/e00411-19.full.pdf
39. Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Bova, C., & Harper, D. (2005). Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: The use of qualitative description. Nursing Outlook, 53(3), 127-133. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2005.03.005
40. Taşkin, Z. ve Doğan, G. (2018, 24 Ekim). Bir tuhaf savaş: Açık bilim ve yağmacı dergiler [Web blog yazısı]. Erişim adresi: https://sarkac.org/2018/10/bir-tuhaf-savas-acik-bilim-ve-yagmaci-dergiler/
41. Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Cohen, M. Z. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1185-1204. doi: 10.1177/0193945916645499
42. Truth, F. (2012). Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 10(2). Erişim adresi: http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/10-2-02.pdf
43. Xia, J. (2015). Predatory journals and their article publishing charges. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 69–74. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20150111
44. 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. doi: 10.1002/asi.23265
45. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11.bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
46. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2019, 9 Mart). “Yağmacı” dergi yayınları akademik yükseltmelerde kullanılamayacak. Erişim adresi: https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/yagmaci-dergi-yayinlarina-onlem.aspx