Paper short abstract:

This paper explores the views of researchers who have published in so-called questionable (‘grey’) journals, analysing their motivation, their perception of the editorial process, and the kind of imaginaries and norms they associate, in general, with scientific publication and peer review.

Paper long abstract:

Publication in so-called questionable (‘grey’) journals has exponentially increased in the last few years. Big publishers like MPDI or Frontiers, which are often considered paradigmatic examples in this category, are already third and seventh in the ranking of most prolific academic publishers. Various criticisms have been levelled at some of these journals and, especially, at their quality standards: their peer review system, the unbridled use of special issues, their very broad or ambiguous thematic coverage or the percentage of self-citations, etc. Some academic institutions and governments have already minimised the impact of these publications on research evaluation. Spain is the third country in number of publications in these journals - while it is 12th in scientific output. One of these journals, recently removed from Web of Science, has been the preferred journal for Spanish scientists in 2021 and 2022. This paper aims to explore the opinions and assessments of researchers who have published repeatedly in this type of journals in the last 5 years. The study is based on 15 interviews with researchers at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, from different fields and at different stages of their academic career, and analyses, firstly, their motivation to publish in these journals, their perception of the editorial process, to what extent they are aware of their controversial status and what is their opinion about it, and, secondly, what kind of imaginaries and norms they associate, in general, with scientific publication and peer review.