Purpose

In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.

Design/methodology/approach

In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.

Findings

We found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.

Originality/value

The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

中文翻译：

---

关于掠夺性出版的有争议论文的文献计量分析

目的

2017年，一项关于“掠夺性”出版文学的研究（Derek Pyne； Journal of Scholarly Publishing； DOI：10.3138 / jsp.48.3.137；多伦多大学出版社）引起了全球媒体的关注。如今，根据调整后的Google Scholar数据，在过去三年中，有53次引用（在Clarivate Analytics的Web of Science中为34），成为该论文引用量最高的论文，占他对Google学术搜索的三分之一。

设计/方法/方法

在本文中，作者对引用该论文的作者进行了文献计量分析。

发现

我们发现，在39篇经同行评审的英文期刊论文中，有11篇（占28％）对Pyne的发现进行了严格评估，其中有些甚至驳​​斥了这些发现。Pyne（2017）论文的2019年引文使《学术出版杂志》 2019年期刊影响因子增加了43％，为0.956，而2019年CiteScore则增加了7.7％。

创意/价值

作者认为引用Pyne（2017）论文的学者和众多媒体并未意识到其有缺陷的发现。