Moderation by Researchgate Related to Comments on “Predatory” Publishing Practices

Panagiotis Tsigaris 1  and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva 2
  • 1 Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, Canada
  • 2 , 761-0799, Kagawa, Japan


The intersection between academia and social media is gradually overlapping. The ability to vent personal and professional discord online, either through blogs or social media, has had both positive and negative consequences on academic communication, with the public and/or in the public domain. ResearchGate (RG) is one of the most popular academic social media sites that allows commenting, either in response to published papers or to questions that are posed on that platform. This paper explores an important aspect of a high-profile, topical and controversial 2017 paper (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137) that had based itself on a flawed blacklist created by Jeffrey Beall. In that paper, unfounded claims were made regarding financial rewards as remuneration schemes at a “small business school” in Canada related to publishing papers in “predatory” journals, i.e., in open access journals that were blacklisted by Beall. Based on those claims, Pyne used RG as a platform to target academics at his research institute. Pyne could have, but did not, use the scholarly platform to engage with his colleagues in an academic debate about his controversial findings, causing personal disrepute on three occasions. Consequently, RG was contacted with a claim of defamation on each occasion. Within hours of each claim, Pyne’s comments were deleted. In early May, RG also erased his social media account. The issue of actual or potential insults in the public domain, such as on blogs, is rarely discussed, much less related to academic social media sites like RG. This case study, and the issues discussed herein related to social media more broadly, will be useful for academics to better navigate increasingly challenging publishing waters.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BOUTRON, I., RAVAUD, P. (2018) Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115(11): 2613-2619. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1710755115

  • COPIELLO, S. (2019) Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w

  • COPIELLO, S., BONIFACI, P. (2019) ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study. Scientometrics 119: 1255–1262. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03063-6

  • FIHN, S.D. (2019). Combating misrepresentation of research findings. JAMA Network Open 2(5): e192553-e192553. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2553

  • KHAN, M.S., LATEEF, N., SIDDIQI, T.J., REHMAN, K.A., ALNAIMAT, S., KHAN, S.U., RIAZ, H., MURAD, H., MANDROLA, J., DOUKKY, R., KRASUSKI, R.A. (2019) Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open 2(5): e192622-e192622. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2622

  • PYNE, D. (2017) The rewards of predatory publishing at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 48(3): 137-160. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137

  • TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A. (2017) ResearchGate projects: unregulated academic social media. Social Communication 1(15): 6-13. DOI: 10.1515/sc-2017-0001

  • TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A., DOBRÁNSZKI, J. (2018) Editors moving forward: stick to academic basics, maximize transparency and respect, and enforce the rules. Recenti Progressi in Medicina 109(5): 263-266. DOI: 10.1701/2902.29244

  • TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A., & TSIGARIS, P. (2018a) What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(6): 781-792. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017

  • TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A, & TSIGARIS, P. (2018b). Academics must list all publications on their CV. KOME 6(1): 94-99. DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2018.16

  • TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A, & TSIGARIS, P. (2019). How hyped media and misleading editorials can influence impressions about Beall’s lists of “predatory” publications. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society (in press) DOI: 10.1108/JICES-06-2018-0059

  • TSIGARIS, P. (2019). Letter to the editors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50(2): 139–142. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.50.2.05

  • TSIGARIS, P., TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A. (2019) Did the research faculty at a small Canadian business school publish in “predatory” venues? This depends on the publishing blacklist. Publications 7: 35. DOI: 10.3390/publications7020035

  • TURRENTINE, M. (2017) It’s all how you “spin” it: interpretive bias in research findings in the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstetrics & Gynecology 129(2): 239-242.


Journal + Issues