| Title |
Indexing by Bibliographic Databases of Journals Published in the Developing World
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9898-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aamir Raoof Memon, Ahmed Waqas |
| Abstract |
The removal of Beall's blog may result in increased numbers of predatory journals and their subsequent victims. Recognizing this, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) suggested criteria for identifying predatory journals in a statement issued on February 18, 2017. These criteria may be helpful in the current scenario of scientific publishing. However, a few lapses and limitations need to be taken into account when translating these policies to the situation in developing countries. This letter presents several cases of legitimate journals and platforms from the developing world that may be erroneously categorized as predatory according to the WAME criteria. We also suggest some improvements in these journals' policies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,396,438
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#328
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,544
of 312,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 312,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.