Bibliometric analysis of a controversial paper on predatory publishing.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]