How metric-based performance evaluation systems fuel the growth of questionable publications?

Abstract The proliferation of questionable publishing practices has raised serious concerns in academia, prompting numerous discussions and investigations into the motivations behind researchers’ preference for such journals. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of current academic performance evaluation systems on scholars’ questionable journal preferences in Turkey. Utilizing data from the comprehensive study conducted by Kulczycki et al. (2021) on questionable journals, we analyzed the academic careers of 398 researchers who authored 417 articles in this context. Our findings reveal a clear association between current research evaluation systems and journal selection, particularly during the process of applying for associate professorship. Notably, 96% of the articles published in questionable journals were listed in scholars’ academic profiles, indicating their use in academic promotion or incentive portfolios. While this study contributes valuable insights into the relationship between academic performance evaluation systems and questionable journal preferences, additional research is required to comprehensively understand the motivations behind scholars’ publishing choices and to devise effective strategies to combat questionable publishing practices in academia.