References

• Abramo, G. ve D’Angelo, G. A. (2011). National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics, 86(2): 347-364. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0297-2. google scholar
• Adams, J., McVeigh, M., Pendlebury, D. ve Szomszor, M. (2019). Profiles, not metrics. Erişim adresi: https:// clarivate.com/g/profiles-not-metrics/ google scholar
• Akça, S. ve Akbulut, M. (2018). Türkiye’deki yağmacı dergiler: Beall listesi üzerine bir araştırma. Bilgi Dünyası, 19(2), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2018.695 google scholar
• Al, U. ve Soydal, İ. (2014). Akademinin atıf dizinleri ile savaşı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 23-42. Erişim adresi: https://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~umutal/publications/war.pdf google scholar
• Al, U. ve Soydal, İ. (2015). Bilimsel iletişimin farklı bir yüzü: Geri çekilen makaleler. U. Al ve Z. Taşkın (Eds.), Prof. Dr. İrfan Çakın’a Armağan (s. 22-37). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü. google scholar
• Altbach, P. ve de Wit, H. (2019). Too much academic research is being published. International Higher Educa-tion, 96, 2-3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.96.10767 google scholar
• Anderson, K. (2012, 6 March). Predatory open access publishers: The natural extreme of an author pays model. The Scholarly Kitchen. Erişim adresi: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/ 06/predatoryopen-ac-cess-publishers-the natural-extreme-of-anauthor-pays-model/ google scholar
• Anderson, R. (2015, 11 May). Should we retire the term “predatory publishing”? Scholarly Kitchen. Erişim adresi: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-we-retire-the-term-predatory-publis-hing/ google scholar
• Anderson, R. (2017, Temmuz 25). Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: A review [Web blog yazısı].Erişim adresi: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journalblacklist-review/ google scholar
• Anonymous (2018). Beall’s List of predatory journals and publishers. Erişim adresi: https://beallslist.weebly. com/ google scholar
• Azam Ali, P. ve Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nurs Open, 3(4), 193-202. https:// doi.org/10.1002/nop2.51 google scholar
• Auranen, O. ve Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An internati-onal comparison. Research Policy, 39(6): 822-834. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003. google scholar
• Bailey, C. W. (2006). What is open access? In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: key strategic, technical and eco-nomic aspects (pp. 13-26). Oxford: Chandos Publishing. google scholar
• Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489(7415), 179. Erişim adresi: https:// www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.11385!/menu/main/top Columns/topLeftColumn/pdf/489179a.pdf google scholar
• Beall, J. (2013a). Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2(2), 47-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9 google scholar
• Beall, J. (2013b). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC: Communication, Capi-talism & Critique 11(2), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525 google scholar
• Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Erişim adresi: https://beallslist. weebly.com /uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf google scholar
• Beall, J. (2016). Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. International Higher Education, (86), 2-3. Erişim adresi: https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/viewFile/9358/8368 google scholar
• Beall, J. (2018). Beall’s List. Erişim adresi: https://archive.fo/CK0S6#selection-175.0-175.12 google scholar
• Berger, M. ve Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College and Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132-135. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277 google scholar
• Björk, B. C. (2007). A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Information Research, 12(2), 307. Erişim adresi: http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/p307.pdf google scholar
• Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, Guönason G (2010) Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, 5(6): e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 google scholar
• Björk, B. C. (2012). The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1496-1504. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.22709 google scholar
• Bland, J. M. ve Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 google scholar
• Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60-65. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science. 342.6154.60 google scholar
• Bornmann, L. ve Daniel, H-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review ofstudies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150 google scholar
• Budapest open access initiative. (2002). L.Chan ve ark. New York: Open Society Instıtue. Erişim adresi: https:// www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/ google scholar
• Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433-435. https://doi. org/10.1038/495433a google scholar
• CBC News: The National. (2016, 18 April). Cleaning up bad science [Video]. Erişim adresi: https://www.you-tube. com/watch?v=SImj1iRMwgM google scholar
• Cerejo, C. (2013, 16 October). What are the most common reasons for retraction? Editage Insights. Erişim adresi: https://www.editage.com/insights/what-are-the-most-common-reasons-for-retraction adresinden erişildi. google scholar
• Clark, J. ve Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. British Medical Journal, 350, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210 google scholar
• cOAlition S. (2018). Plan S:Principles and mplementation. Erişim adresi: https://www.coalition-s.org/adden-dum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/ google scholar
• Cobey, K. (2017). Illegitimate journals scam even senior scientists. Nature, 549(7670), 7. Erişim adresi: https://www.nature.com/articles/549007a google scholar
• Committee on Publication Ethics (2014). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Erişim adresi: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-pra-ctice-scholarly-publishing google scholar
• Crawford, W. (2014a). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1-14. Erişim adresi: http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf google scholar
• Crawford, W. (2014b). Journals, journals and wannabes: Investigating the list. Cites & Insights, 14(7), 1-24. Erişim adresi: https://citesandinsights.info/civ14i7.pdf google scholar
• Dadkhah, M. ve Jazi, M. D. (2015). Special issues as criterion for journal quality evaluation: Letter to editor. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 42-43. Erişim adresi: http://www.dgt.uns.ac.rs/dokumentacija/pannonica/ papers/volume19_2_1.pdf google scholar
• Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T. ve Jazi, M.D. (2016). Characteristics of hijacked journals and predatory publis-hers: Our observations in the academic world. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 37(6), 415-418. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tips.2016.04.002 google scholar
• Dai, N., Xu, D., Zhong, X., Li, L., Ling, Q. ve Bu, Z. (2014). Publishing in open access era: focus on respiratory journals. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 6(5), 564-567. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.03.18 google scholar
• Das, A. K. (2015). Open access: History and developments. In S. Mishra and M. P. Satija (eds.), Introduction to Open Access (pp. 17-30). Paris: UNESCO. Erişim adresi: http://eprints.rclis.org/24903/2/LS1.2%20Open% 20Access% 20History.pdf google scholar
• Demir, S. B. (2018a). A mixed-methods study of ex-post funding incentive policy for scholarly publications: Aca-demic or economic? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.05 google scholar
• Demir, S. B. (2018b). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296-1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008 google scholar
• Demir, S. B. (2018c). Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2053-2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4 google scholar
• Dilek Kayaoğlu, H. (2004). Bilimsel iletişim sürecinde basılı dergiden elektronik dergiye geçiş. B. K. Ataman ve M. Yalvaç (ed.), Aysel Yontar Armağanı (s. 37-65). İstanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği İstanbul Şubesi. google scholar
• Dilek-Kayaoğlu, H. (2006). Açık erişim kavramı ve gelişmekte olan bir ülke olarak Türkiye için anlamı. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 20(1), 29-60. Erişim adresi: http://www.tk.org.tr/index.php/tk/article/view/79 google scholar
• Dobson, H. (2016). Think. Check. Submit: the campaign helping researchers navigate the scholarly communi-cation landscape. Insights, 29(3), 228-232. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.323 google scholar
• Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Med Health Care and Philos 20, 163-170 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 google scholar
• Eriksson, S. ve Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Pub-lishing, 31(2), 181-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1135 google scholar
• Forero, D. A., Oermann, M. H., Manca, A., Deriu, F., Mendieta-Zeron, H., Dadkhah, M., ... CifUentes, M. P. (2018). Negative effects of “predatory” journals on global health research. Annals of Global Health, 4(4), 584-589. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2389 google scholar
• Frandsen, T. F. (2017). Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1513-1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x google scholar
• Frith, U. (2020, January). Fast lane to slow science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 24(1), 1-2. https://doi.or-g/10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.007 google scholar
• Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish’? The Scientist, 10(12), 11. Erişim adresi: https://www.the-scientist.com/commentary/what-is-the-primordial-reference-for-the-ph-rase-publish-or-perish-57976 google scholar
• Garfield, E. (1973). Citation frequency as a measure of research activity and performance. Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 406-408. Erişim adresi: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/ V1p406y1962-73.pdf google scholar
• Goodhart, C. A. E. (1984). Monetary theory and practice: The UK experience. Londra: Mac Millan Press. google scholar
• Grove, J. (2019, 28 Kasım). Restrict researchers to one paper a year, says UCL professor. Erişim adresi: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/news/restrict-researchers-one-paper-ayear-says-ucl-professor google scholar
• Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., ... Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y google scholar
• Grzybowski, A., Patryn, R. ve Sak, J. (2017). Predatory journals and dishonesty in science. Clinics in Dermato-logy, 35, 607-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2017.07.003 google scholar
• Hacettepe Üniversitesi (2018). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Senatosu’nun predatory (şüpheli/korsan/yağma cı/istis-marcı) dergilerle ilgili kararı. Erişim adresi: http://www.library.hacettepe.edu.tr/ eklenti/predatory.pdf google scholar
• Hedding, D. W. (2019). Payouts push professors towards predatory journals. Erişim adresi: https://www.nature. com/ articles/d41586-019-00120-1 google scholar
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S. ve Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-431. Erişim adresi: https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.17351!/ menu/main /topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/520429a.pdf google scholar
• Ho, A. K. (2010). Scholarly communication: A presentation for FIMS LIS9630. Western Libraries Staff Presen-tations. Paper 19. Erişim adresi: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wlpres/19/ google scholar
• Houghton, J. W. (2010). Economic Implications of Alternative Publishing Models: Self-archiving and Reposi-tories. LIBER Quarterly, 19(3-4), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7966 google scholar
• Jalalian, M. ve Mahboobi, H. (2013). New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organi-zations. Electronic Physician, 5(3), 685. https://doi.org/10.14661/2013.685-686 google scholar
• Jalalian, M. (2015). The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electronic Physician, 7(2), 1069-1072. https://doi.org/10.14661/2015.1069-1072 google scholar
• Kasap, S., ve Usul, A. S. (2019, 09 Mart). ‘Yağmacı’ dergi yayınları akademik yükseltmelerde kullanılamayacak. Anadolu Ajansı. Erişim adresi: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/yagmaci-dergi-yayinlari-akademik-yukselt-melerde-kullanilamayacak/1413296# google scholar
• Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? LearnedPublishing 31 (2), 141-147. https://doi. org/10.1002/leap.1150 google scholar
• Laine, C. ve Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031 google scholar
• Lee, C. J. ve Moher, D. (2017). Promote scientifc integrity via journal peer review data. Science, 357(6348), 256-257. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan4141 google scholar
• Machacek, V., Srholec, M., & Institut pro demokracii a ekonomickou analyzu (projekt). (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Nârodohospodarsky ustav AV ĞR vvi. Erişim adresi: https://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/ IDEA_Study_2_ 2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_ journals_in_Scopus.pdf google scholar
• Malin, M. V. (1968). The science citation index: A new concept in indexing. Library Trends, 16, 374-387. Erişim adresi: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/6392/librarytrendsv16i3h_opt.pdf?sequen-ce=1&isAllowed=y google scholar
• Mantzavinos, D. (2019). Publish or perish: Implications for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 94(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5875 google scholar
• Memon, A. R. (2018). Predatory journals spamming for publications: What should researchers do? Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1617-1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6 google scholar
• Michalska-Smith, M.J. ve Allesina, S. (2017). And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. PloS One, 12(6), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178074 google scholar
• Moher, D. ve Srivastava, A. (2015). You are invited to submit. BMC Medicine, 13(180), 1-4. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12916-015-0423-3 google scholar
• Moher, D. ve Moher, E. (2016). Stop predatory publishers now: Act collaboratively. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164, 616-617. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-3015 google scholar
• Mouton, J. ve Valentine, A. (2017). The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals. South African Journal of Science, 113(7-8), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.17159sajs.2017/20170010 google scholar
• Muller, J. (2018). Tyranny of metrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar
• Mulligan, A., Hall, L. ve Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798 google scholar
• Mutlu, G. (2020). Türk akademisyenlerin yağmacı dergilere ilişkin görüşleri: Bir nitel betimsel çalışma. Egitim-de Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi — Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 107- 134. https://doi. org/10.14 689/issn.2148-2624.1.8c.1s.6m google scholar
• Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scien-tific activity. New Jersey: Computer Horizons, Inc. Erişim adresi: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down-load; jsessionid= C5926952AA1C9D452539654A71C1A6EB?doi=10.1.1.473.8004&rep=rep1&type=pdf google scholar
• Nobel Prize (2017, 19 June ). The research counts, not the journal! Nobel laureates speak out against impact factors [Video]. Erişim adresi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQ8R0OyvyQ google scholar
• Olijhoek, T., Mitchell, D. ve Bj0rnshauge, L. (2015). Criteria for open access and publishing. Erişim adresi: https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=2befee62-f9c0-4dc8-93c5-790d6102877 d google scholar
• Öztürk, K. (2012) Şişme dergiler ve yayın etiği ihlalleri. Matematik Dünyası, II, 69-75. Erişim adresi: https:// www.academia.edu/1797079/%C5%9Ei%C5%9Fme_Dergiler_ve_Yay%C4%B1n_Eti%C4%9Fi_%C4%-B0hlalleri google scholar
• Petrişor, A.-I. (2016). Evolving strategies of the predatory journals. Malaysian Journal of Library and Informa-tion Science, 21 (1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol21noL1 google scholar
• Predatory. (Açıklama). (t.y.). Merriam-Webster online dictionary içinde. Erişim adresi: https://www.merri-am-webster.com/dictionary/predatory google scholar
• Renandya, W. (2014). What are bogus journals and why should we avoid them. Beyond Words, 2(2), 1-17. Erişim adresi: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publicationyear=2014 &pages=2&aut-hor=W.+A.+Renandya&title=What+are+Bogus+journals+and+why+should+we+avoid+them google scholar
• Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Vuren, H. G. ve Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria - evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. ResearchPolicy, 27, 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00026-2 google scholar
• Roberts, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. The Jour-nal of Sexual Medicine, 13(12), 1830-1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.10.008 google scholar
• Rossner, M., Van Epps, H. ve Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. J. Cell Biol, 179, 1091-1092. https://doi. org/10.10 83/jcb.200711140 google scholar
• Rossner M., Van Epps, H., ve Hill, E. (2008). Irreproducible results: A response to Thomson Scientific. J. Cell Biol. 180, 254-255. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200801036 google scholar
• Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6(588), 1-37. https:// doi.org/10. 12688/f1000research.11369.2 google scholar
• San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2012). Putting science into the assessment of research. Erişim adresi: https://sfdora.org/read/ google scholar
• Schneider, J.W., ve Borlund, P. (2004). Introduction to bibliometrics forconstruction and maintenan-ce of thesauri: Methodical considerations. Journal of Documentation, 60(5), 524-549. https://doi. org/10.1108/00220410410560609 google scholar
• Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Me-dical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 google scholar
• Sgroi, D. ve Oswald, A. J. (2013). How should peer-review panels behave? The Economic Journal, 123(570), F255-F278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12070 google scholar
• Shaghaei, N., Wien, C., Holck, J. P., Thiesen, A. L., Ellegaard, O., Vlachos, E. ve Drachen, T. M. (2018). Being a deliberate prey of a predator: Researchers’ thoughts after having published in predatory journal. LIBER Quarterly, 28(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10259 google scholar
• Shaw, C. (2013, 4 Aralık). Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. Erişim adresi: http:// www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/openaccess-journals-fake-paper google scholar
• Shen, C. ve Björk, B. C. (2015). ’Predatory’ Open Access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 google scholar
• Siler, K. (2018, June 30). The influence of status on conflicting institutional logics: Valuations of legitimacy and predation in scientific publishing. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6r274 google scholar
• Silver, A. (2017, 31 May). Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature. Erişim adresi: https:// www.nature.com/news/pay-to-view-blacklist-of-predatory-journals-set-to-launch-1.22090 google scholar
• Simon, A. (2016). Pitfalls of predatory journals: A personal account. ComprehensivePsychology, 5, 1-5. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2165222816631691 google scholar
• Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83-106. Erişim adresi: http://www.ugr.es/~benjamin/ TRI/ citation-analysis.pdf google scholar
• Solomon, D. J. ve Björk, B. C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 63, 1485-1495. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673 google scholar
• Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A. Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481. Erişim adresi: https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.21662!/menu/main/ topColumns/ topLeftColumn/pdf/ 543481a.pdf google scholar
• Straumsheim, C. (2017, 18 January). No more Bealls List’. Erişim adresi: https://www.insidehighered.com / news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-duethreats-and-politics google scholar
• Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Erişim adresi: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ handle /1/10752204/9780262517638_Open_Access.pdf?sequence=1 google scholar
• Swan, A. P. ve Sheridan, N. B. (2004). JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey Report. Truro, United Kingdom: Key Perspectives Ltd. Erişim adresi: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261002/1/ JISCOAreport1.pdf google scholar
• Şencan, İ. (2017). Ya “sahte”yse? Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 31(4), 445-448. https://doi.org/10.24146/tkd.2017.20 google scholar
• Taşkın, Z. (2017). İçerik tabanlı atıf analizi modeli tasarımı: Türkçe atıflar için metin kategorizasyonuna dayalı bir uygulama. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara. google scholar
• Taşkın, Z. ve Canata, F. (2017). “Yaşama saygı”, bilimsel iletişim ve etik. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 31(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.24146/tkd.2017.2 google scholar
• Taşkın, Z. (2018, 20 Nisan). Çöp yayınlar başarıyı ölçmemeli. Herkese Bilim Teknoloji, 108. Erişim adresi: http:// zehrataskin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/HBT_ZT_.pdf google scholar
• Taşkın, Z. (2019a, 04 Aralık ). Büyük yanılgı: Yağmacı faaliyetlerin nedeni açık erişim felsefesi değil! Sarkaç. Erişim adresi: https://sarkac.org/2019/12/yagmaci-faaliyetlerin-nedeni-acik-erisim-felsefesi-degil/ google scholar
• Taşkın, Z. (2019b, 15 Ocak). Akademinin yel değirmenleriyle savaşında Don Kişot olmak. Sarkaç. Erişim adresi: https://sarkac.org/2019/01/akademinin-yel-degirmenleriyle-savasinda-don-kisot-olmak/ google scholar
• Tennant, J. P. (2017). The dark side of peer review. Editorial Office News, 10(8), 2-4. https://doi.org/10.18243/ eon /2017.10.8.1 google scholar
• Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D. ve Clomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 6(1151), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 google scholar
• The Association of College and Research Libraries. (2003). The principles and strategies fort the reform of scho-larly communication 1. Erişim adresi: http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies google scholar
• The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Med, 3(6), e291. https://doi.org/10.1371 / journal.pmed.0030291 google scholar
• Thorin, S. E. (2006). Global changes in scholarly communication. In H. S. Ching., P. W. T. Poon ve C. McNau-ght (eds.), eLearning and digital publishing (pp. 221-240). Dordrecht: Springer. Erişim adresi: https://link. springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/1-4020-3651-5_12 google scholar
• Tonta, Y. (2014). Akademik performans, öğretim üyeliğine yükseltme ve yayın destekleme ölçütleriyle ilgili bir değerlendirme. Erişim adresi: http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/tonta-yukseltme-kriterleri-hak-kindadegerlendirme-11-Temmuz-2014.pdf google scholar
• Tonta, Y. (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye Adresli Uluslararası Bilimsel Yayınları Teşvik (UBYT) programının değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. Erişim adresi: https://ulakbim.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/images/ Ulakbim/tonta_ubyt.pdf google scholar
• Tonta, Y. (2018, 5 Aralık). Araştırma değerlendirme üzerine. Sarkaç. Erişim adresi: https://sarkac.org/2018/12/ arastirma-degerlendirme-uzerine/ google scholar
• Tonta, Y. (2019, 23 Ocak). Bilimsel yayınlara açık erişim modelleri. Sarkaç. Erişim adresi: https://sarkac. org/2019/01/ bilimsel-yayinlara-acik-erisim-modelleri/ google scholar
• Tosti, A. ve Maddy, A. J. (2017). Ranking predatory journals in dermatology: Distinguishing the bad from the ugly. International Journal of Dermatology, 56, 718-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.13644 google scholar
• Truth, F. (2012). Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(2), 54-105. Erişim adresi: http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/10-2-02.pdf google scholar
• Türk Kütüphaneciliği Editörler Kurulu. (2018). Niteliksiz bilimsel üretim ve akademiye zararları üzerine. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 32(2), 61-64. https://doi.org/10.24146/tkd.2018.30 google scholar
• Uçak Özenç, N. (2009). Bilimsel İletişim ve Üniversite Kütüphaneleri. İ. Keskin, M. H. Kutluoğlu ve S. S. Kurbanoğlu (Ed.), Hidayet Yavuz Nuhoğu Armağanı (s.291-298). İstanbul: Pamuk Yayıncılık. google scholar
• Usul, A. S. ve Kasap, S. (2019, 10 Mart). Rektörlerden YÖK’ün ‘yağmacı dergi’ önlemine destek. Anadolu Ajansı. Erişim adresi: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/rektorlerden-yokun-yagmaci-dergi-onlemine-des-tek/1413908 google scholar
• Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact Factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification. Scientometric, 92, 211-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0 google scholar
• Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of univer-sities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6 google scholar
• Vogel, G. ve Kupferschmidt, K. (2017, 23 Ağustos). A bold open-access push in Germany could change the future of academic publishing. Science Magazine. Erişim adresi: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ bold-open-access-push-germany-could-change-future-academic-publishing. google scholar
• Wahyudi, R. (2016). The generic structure of the call for papers of predatory journals: A social semiotic pers-pective. In P. Mickan, E. Lopez (Eds.), Text-based research and teaching a social semiotic perspective on language in use (pp. 117-136). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-59849-3_7 google scholar
• Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC Summary Papers. London. Erişim adresi: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676 &rep=rep1 &type=pdf google scholar
• Watson, R. (2017). Predatory publishers: Time for action. Nursing Open, 4, 186. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.104 google scholar
• White, E. C. (1985, Winter). Bibliometrics: From curiosity to convention. Special Libraries, 76(1), 35-42. Erişim adresi: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ314075 google scholar
• Wiley and Projekt DEAL partner to enhance the future of scholarly research and publishing in Germany. (2019, 15 Ocak). Erişim adresi: https://www.hrk.de/press/press-releases/press-release/meldung/wiley-and-pro-jekt-deal-partner-to-enhance-the-future-of-scholarly-research-and-publishing-in-germany/. google scholar
• Wilsdon, J. R., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., ..., ve Johnson, B. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Project Report. London: HEFCE. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363 google scholar
• Wouters, P. ve Haak, W. (2017). Open data report: The researcher perspective. Erişim adresi: https://www. elsevier.com/ data/assets/pdf_file/0004/281920/Open-data-report.pdf google scholar
• Xia, J., Harmon, J.L., Connolly, K.G., Donnelly, R.M., Anderson, M.R. ve Howard, H.A. (2015). Who pub-lishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(7), 1406-1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265 google scholar
• Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public knowledge: the social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Fmg4AAAAIAAJ &printsec=frontcover&h-l=tr&source=gbs_ge_summ ary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false google scholar
• Zuckerman, H. ve Merton, R.K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188 google scholar