Search

The internet has brought both benefits and risks for academia. Predatory publishing and conferences are well‐known, and less common academic cybercrime has also been identified, such as fraudulent conferences and journal hijacking. This study aimed to explore one further possible method for deceiving academics, namely, fraudulent accounts on social media. The study focused on two easily exploitable gaps in journals' social media engagement: whether journals have accounts on the most common social media platforms and whether journals use the same username across all their accounts. Evidence of fraudulent social media accounts was also sought. Drawing from a sample of 50 journals, the results indicate that many journals do not use social media, journals often use multiple usernames and fewer than half the accounts were officially verified. Some apparently fraudulent activity was found, but this was notably limited in scope and appeared to be politically rather than economically oriented. Further potential for deception was evident in accounts unaffiliated with a journal but registered with the journal's usernames and in the opportunity to create new social media accounts with journals' usernames. Journals are recommended to recognize this threat and some possible countermeasures are suggested.

This study investigated whether basic details of the research process are mentioned in social science research articles. Five hundred empirical articles were sampled from the Social Sciences Citation Index. The frequency of omitted details was mixed. For central essential details, omission rates were: 0% for research purpose, 2% for data collection method, 8% for sample size, 20% for data analysis method, and 48% for sampling strategy. The analysis found that 56% of articles were missing one or more of these five details. For more peripheral details, omission rates were: 36% for limitations, 55% for ethical considerations, and 94% for foundational philosophy. Prevalence rates were varied when compared across different disciplines and between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Possible causes for these findings include the use of secondary data, the view that certain details are not essential, and traditions in ethnographic writing. Those involved in academic publishing are invited to reflect on the basic details that are essential for their specialism and how reporting standards are enforced.