Abalkina A. (2023), Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill, «Learned Publishing», 36, 4, pp. 689-702. DOI:10.1002/leap.1574.
Aczel B., Szaszi B., Holcombe A.O. (2021), A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review, «Research Integrity and Peer Review», 6, 14, pp. 1-8. DOI:10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2.
Ahmed A., Al-Khatib A., Boum Y., Debat H., Gurmendi Dunkelberg A., Hinchliffe L.J., Jarrad F., Mastroianni A., Mineault P., Pennington C., Pruszynski J.A. (2023), The future of academic publishing, «Nature Human Behaviour», 7, 7, pp. 1021-1026. DOI:10.1038/s41562-023-01637-2.
Allman D. (2019), Pseudo or perish: Problematizing the ‘predatory’ in global health publishing, «Critical Public Health», 29, 4, pp. 413-423. DOI:10.1080/09581596.2019.1606417.
Ancarani V. (1996), La scienza decostruita. Teorie sociologiche della conoscenza scientifica, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Asai S. (2023), Does double dipping occur? The case of Wiley’s hybrid journals, «Scientometrics», 128, pp. 5159-5168. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04800-8.
Baek K., Rem A.H. (2024), HBS Professor Gino Amends Lawsuit Against Harvard to Claim Gender Discrimination, «The Harvard Crimson», 23 ottobre 2024, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/10/23/business-school-gino-amends-lawsuit/.
Baldissera A. (2009), Distinguere il grano dal loglio? Conteggi di citazioni e valutazioni paritarie della qualità scientifica, in Id. (a cura di), La valutazione della ricerca nelle scienze sociali, Acireale-Roma, Bonanno, pp. 15-49.
Baldwin M. (2015), Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945-1990, «Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science», 69, 3, pp. 337-352. DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029
Baldwin M. (2018), Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States, «Isis», 109, 3, pp. 538-558. DOI: 10.1086/700070.
Baldwin M. (2020), Peer Review, in Encyclopedia of the History of Science. DOI:10.34758/srde-jw27.
Batagelj V., Ferligoj A., Squazzoni F. (2017), The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review, «Scientometrics», 113, pp. 503-532. DOI:10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8.
Beall J. (2010), “Predatory” open-access scholarly publishers, «The Charleston Advisor», 11, 4, pp. 10-17.
Beall J. (2012), Predatory publishers are corrupting open access, «Nature», 489, p. 179. DOI:10.1038/489179a.
Beall J. (2013), Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access, «Learned Publishing», 26, 2, pp. 79-84.
Beall J. (2018), Scientific Soundness and the Problem of Predatory Journals, in Kaufman A.B., Kaufman J.C. (eds.), Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, Cambridge, The MIT Press, pp. 284-299. DOI:10.7551/mitpress/10747.001.0001.
Bertaux D. (2008), Peut-on construire des indicateurs de notoriété des centres de sociologie?, «Socio-logos», 3. DOI:10.4000/socio-logos.1703.
Biagioli M., Kenney M., Martin B., Walsh, J.P. (2019), Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment, «Research Policy», 48, 2, pp. 401-413. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.025.
Björk B.-C., Catani P. (2016), Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?, «Learned Publishing», 29, 1, pp. 9-12.
Boas Hall M. (1984), All Scientists Now. The Royal Society in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bornmann L., Rüdiger M., Daniel H.-D. (2007), Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis, «Journal of Infometrics», 1, pp. 226-238.
Borrelli D. (2023), La meritocrazia nuoce all’Università. Chi la pratica avvelena anche te, in AA. VV., Perché la valutazione ha fallito. Per una nuova Università pubblica, Perugia, Morlacchi Editore, pp. 41-62.
Brainard J. (2023), Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common, «Science». DOI:10.1126/science.adi6523.
Brembs B. et al. (2023), Replacing academic journals, «Royal Society Open Science», 10, 230206, pp. 1-12. doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230206.
Bucci E. (2020), Cattivi scienziati. La pandemia della malascienza, Torino, ADD Editore.
Buranyi S. (2017), Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?, «The Guardian», 27 giugno. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
Burrows R. (2012), Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy, «The Sociological Review», 60, 2, pp. 355-372. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02077.x.
Butler L.-A., Matthias L., Simard M.-A., Mongeon P., Haustein S. (2023), The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges, «Quantitative Science Studies», 4, 4, pp. 778-799. DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00272.
Byrne J. A., Labbé C. (2017), Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines, «Scientometrics», 110, 3, pp. 1471-1493. DOI:10.1007/s11192-016-2209-6.
Cabanac G., Labbé C. (2021), Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature, «Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology», 72, 12, pp. 1461-1476. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24495.
Case K.A., Iuzzini J., Hopkins M. (2012), Systems of Privilege: Intersections, Awareness, and Applications, «Journal of Social Issues», 68, pp. 1-10. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01732.x
Cerroni A. (2009), Valutare la scienza sociale nell’epoca della società della conoscenza, in Baldissera A. (a cura di), La valutazione della ricerca nelle scienze sociali, Acireale-Roma, Bonanno, pp. 51-67.
Chubin D.E., Hackett E.E. (1990), Peerless science. Peer review and US science policy, Albany, SUNY Press.
Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) (2022), Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf.
Cochran A. (2024), Putting Research Integrity Checks Where They Belong, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/03/28/putting-research-integrity-checks-where-they-belong/, 28 marzo.
Collyer F.M. (2018), Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South, «Current Sociology», 66, 1, pp. 56-73. DOI:10.1177/0011392116680020.
COPE (2024), Cope position statement, https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/paper-mills.
COPE, STM (2022), Paper Mills. Research report from COPE & STM. DOI:10.24318/jtbG8IHL.
Council of the European Union (2022), Council conclusions on Research assessment and implementation of Open Science, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/56958/st10126-en22.pdf.
Council of the European Union (2023), Council conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9616-2023-INIT/en/pdf.
Cukier S., Helal L., Rice D.B., Pupkaite J., Ahmadzai N., Wilson M., Skidmore B., Lalu M.M., Moher D. (2020a), Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: A systematic review, «BMC Medicine», 18, pp. 1-20. DOI:10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1.
Cukier S., Lalu M., Bryson G.L., Cobey K.D., Grudniewicz A., Moher D. (2020b), Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process, «BMJ Open», 10, e035561. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561.
Dadkhah M., Bianciardi G. (2016), Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing it!, «Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin», 6, 1, pp. 1-4. DOI:10.15171/apb.2016.001.
Dahler-Larsen P. (2012), The evaluation society, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Deutsche Bank AG (2005), Reed Elsevier: Moving the Supertanker, «Company Focus: Global Equity Research Report», January 11, n. 36.
DORA-San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (2012). https://sfdora.org/.
Dyer O. (2024), Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to retract multiple papers after blogger alleges data fabrication, «BMJ», 384, q249. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.q249.
Else H. (2021), What Sci-Hub’s latest court battle means for research, «Nature», 600, 7889, pp. 370-371. DOI:10.1038/d41586-021-03659-0.
Else H. (2023), Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers, «Nature», 613, pp. 617-618. DOI:10.1038/d41586-023-00062-9.
Else H.,Van Noorden R. (2021), The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science, «Nature», 591, pp. 516-519. DOI:10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5.
Eriksson S., Helgesson G. (2017), The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics, «Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy», 20, 2, pp. 163-170. DOI:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3.
Etzkowitz H. (1983), Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science, «Minerva», 21, pp. 198-233.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2020), Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc., a Nevada corporation, also doing business as OMICS Publishing Group, iMEDPub LLC, a Delaware corporation, Conference Series LLC, a Delaware corporation, and Srinubabu Gedela, FTC Matter/File Number 152 3113; Federal Court District of Nevada.
Fochler M. (2016), Variants of Epistemic Capitalism: Knowledge Production and the Accumulation of Worth in Commercial Biotechnology and the Academic Life Sciences, «Science, Technology & Human Values», 41, 5, pp. 922-948. DOI:10.1177/0162243916652224.
Fochler M., de Rijcke S. (2017), Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate, «Engaging Science, Technology, and Society», 3, pp. 21-40. DOI:10.17351/ests2017.108.
Fricker M. (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Frontiers (2022), Progress Report 2022, Frontiersin.org.
Fyfe A., Coate K., Curry S., Lawson S., Moxham N., Røstvik C.M. (2017), Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship Between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research, University of St Andrews, St Andrews. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.546100.
Gieryn T.F. (1983), Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists, «American Sociological Review», 48, 6, pp. 781-795. DOI:10.2307/2095325.
Ginther D., Schaffer W., Schnell J., Masimore B., Liu F., Haak L., Kington R. (2011), Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards, «Science», 333, pp. 1015-1019.
Goodhart C.A.E. (1975a), Monetary Relationships: A View from Threadneedle Street in Papers in Monetary Economics, 1, Reserve Bank of Australia.
Goodhart C.A.E. (1975b), Problems of Monetary Management: The UK Experience, in Papers in Monetary Economics, 1, Reserve Bank of Australia, July.
Goodhart C.A.E. (1984), Monetary Theory and Practice, London, Macmillan.
Grudniewicz A. et al. (2019), Predatory journals: No definition, no defence, «Nature», 576, 7786, pp. 210-212. DOI:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
Guzzetti L. (2005), Scienza e società: Il dibattito in corso, in Luzzatto G., Guzzetti L. (a cura di), I rapporti tra scienza e società. I valori e le responsabilità, la ricerca e lo sviluppo, l’informazione, Roma, Carocci, pp. 15-20.
Hackett E.J. (1990), Science as a Vocation in the 1990s, «The Journal of Higher Education», 61, 3, pp. 241-279. DOI:10.1080/00221546.1990.11780710.
Hackett E.J. (1994), A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct, «The Journal of Higher Education», 65, 3, pp. 242-260. DOI:10.2307/2943966.
Hanafi S. (2011), University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs publish locally and perish globally, «Current Sociology», 59, 3, pp. 291-309. DOI:10.1177/0011392111400782.
Hanson M.A., Barreiro P.G., Crosetto P., Brockington D. (2023), The strain on scientific publishing, «arXiv». DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884.
Harzing A.-W., Adler N.J. (2016), Disseminating Knowledge: From Potential to Reality-New Open-Access Journals Collide with Convention, «Academy of Management Learning & Education», 15, 1, pp. 140-156. DOI:10.5465/amle.2013.0373.
Holcombe A.O. (2023). How to Stop Academic Fraudsters, «The Chronicle of Higher Education», 4 December, https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-stop-academic-fraudsters.
Hvistendahl M. (2013), China’s Publication Bazaar, «Science», 342, 6162, pp. 1035-1039. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6162.1035.
Ioannidis J.P.A., Pezzullo A.M., Boccia S. (2023), The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities, «JAMA», 329, 15, pp. 1253-1254. DOI:10.1001/jama.2023.3212.
ISC-International Science Council (2023), The Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing. International Science Council. https://council.science/publications/reform-of-scientific-publishing/.
Johns A. (1998), The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Kendall G., Teixeira da Silva J.A. (2023), Risks of abuse of large language models, like ChatGPT, in scientific publishing: Authorship, predatory publishing, and paper mills, «Learned Publishing», 37, pp. 55-62. DOI:10.1002/leap.1578.
Kharumnuid S.A., Singh Deo P. (2022), Researchers’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey, «Accountability in Research», 31, 5, pp. 479-496. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470.
Kincaid A.E. (2024), Sociology journal’s entire editorial board resigns after Springer Nature appointed new leadership, https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/22/sociology-journals-entire-editorial-board-resigns-after-springer-nature-appointed-new-leadership/.
Kleinman D.L., Vallas S.P. (2006), Contradiction in Convergence. Universities and Industry in the Biotechnology Field, in Frickel S., Moore K. (eds.), The new political sociology of science. Institutions, networks, and power, Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 35-62.
Knorr-Cetina K. (1981), The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science, Oxford, Pergamon.
Kramer B. (2024), Study on scientific publishing in Europe. Development, diversity, and transparency of costs. European Commission-Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Bruxelles.
Krawczyk F., Kulczycki E. (2021), On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication, «Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society», 4, 1, pp. 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/25729861.2021.1984641.
Kronick D.A. (1990), Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism, «JAMA», 263, 10, pp. 1321-1322. DOI:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002.
Kulczycki E. (2023), We won’t defeat predatory journals by making a list of them, «THE Times Higher Education», 4 aprile, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/we-wont-defeat-predatory-journals-making-list-them.
Labbé C., Labbé D. (2013), Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: How many SCIgen papers in computer science?, «Scientometrics», 94, 1, pp. 379-396. DOI:10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y.
LaCour M.J., Green D.P. (2014), When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality, «Science», 346, 6215, pp. 1366-1369. DOI:10.1126/science.1256151.
Laine C., Winker M.A. (2017), Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals, «Biochemia Medica», 27, 2, pp. 285-291. DOI:10.11613/BM.2017.031.
Lamont M. (2009), How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Lamont M., Huutoniemi K. (2011), Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels, in Camic C., Gross N., Lamont M. (eds.), Social Knowledge in the Making, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 209-232.
Larregue J., Nielsen M.W. (2023), Knowledge Hierarchies and Gender Disparities in Social Science Funding, «Sociology», 58, 1, pp. 45-65. DOI:10.1177/00380385231163071.
Latour B., Woolgar S. (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Beverly Hills, Sage, Princeton University Press.
Letki N. (2023), Journal blacklists are a useful way to promote academic integrity, «THE Times Higher Education», 14 aprile, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/journal-blacklists-are-useful-way-promote-academic-integrity.
Maistry S.M. (2019), (Re)counting the high cost of predatory publishing and the effect of a neoliberal performativity culture, «Journal of Education», 75, pp. 5-19. DOI:10.17159/2520-9868/i75a01.
McGlynn T. (2013), The Evolution of Pseudojournals, «Small Pond Science», https://smallpondscience.com/2013/02/14/the-evolution-of-pseudojournals/
MDPI (2016), Annual Report 2016, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2017), Annual Report 2017, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2018), Annual Report 2018, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2019), Annual Report 2019, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2020), Annual Report 2020, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2021), Annual Report 2021, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2022), Annual Report 2022, Basel, MDPI.
MDPI (2023), Annual Report 2023. Enhancing Visibility and Impact, Basel, MDPI.
Mehregan M. (2022), Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing, «Research Ethics», 18, 2, pp. 163-168. DOI:10.1177/17470161211068745.
Memon A.R. (2018), Predatory journals spamming for publications: What should researchers do?, «Science and Engineering Ethics», 24, 5, pp. 1617-1639. DOI:10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6.
Merriman B. (2021), Peer Review as an Evolving Response to Organizational Constraint: Evidence from Sociology Journals, 1952-2018, «The American Sociologist», 52, 2, pp. 341-366. DOI:10.1007/s12108-020-09473-x.
Merton R.K. (1938), Science and the Social Order, «Philosophy of Science», 5, 3, pp. 321-337.
Merton R.K. (1942), A Note on Science and Democracy, «Journal of Legal and Political Sociology», 1(1 e 2), pp. 115-126.
Merton R.K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure. Revised and enlarged edition, Glencoe, The Free Press.
Merton R.K. (1965), On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript, Glencoe, The Free Press.
Mills D., Robinson N. (2022), Democratising Monograph Publishing or Preying on Researchers? Scholarly Recognition and Global ‘Credibility Economies’, Science as Culture, 31, 2, pp. 187-211. DOI:10.1080/09505431.2021.2005562.
Mirowski P. (2018), The future(s) of open science, «Social Studies of Science», 48, 2, pp. 171-203. DOI:10.1177/0306312718772086.
Moher D. et al. (2017), Stop this waste of people, animals and money, «Nature», 549, 7670, pp. 23-25. DOI:10.1038/549023a.
Morais R., Stoy L., Borrell-Damián L. (2019), 2019 Big Deals Survey Report, Bruxelles, European University Association.
Moxham N., Fyfe A. (2018), The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665-1965, «The Historical Journal», 61, 4, pp. 863-889. DOI:10.1017/S0018246X17000334.
Mulkay M. (1976), Norms and ideology in science, «Social Science Information», 15, 4-5, pp. 637-656.
Nightingale P., Scott A. (2007), Peer Review and the Relevance Gap: Ten Suggestions for Policy Makers, «Science and Public Policy», 34, pp. 543-553.
Östling J., Larsson Heidenblad D. (2023), The History of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Park Y., West R.A., Pathmendra P., Favier B., Stoeger T., Capes-Davis A., Cabanac G., Labbé C., Byrne J.A. (2022), Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences, «Life Science Alliance», 5, 4, e202101203. DOI:10.26508/lsa.202101203.
Parra Saiani P. (2009), Gli indicatori sociali, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Pérez-Neri I., Pineda C., Sandoval H. (2022), Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: A rapid scoping review, «Clinical Rheumatology», 41, 7, pp. 2241-2248. DOI:10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9.
Power M. (1997), The audit society: rituals of verification, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Publication Forum-Panels (2022), Meeting minutes 7.11.2022, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XB4UGYa3Xgk9IFNSVH092ihdA_BKZ05ju1KDnSWug4Q/edit#heading=h.c5shi7vwcl6z.
Ritchie S. (2020), Science Fictions. How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth, New York, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company.
Rodriguez Medina L. (2014), Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production, New York, Routledge.
Rosa H. (2010), Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality, NSU Press; trad. it. Accelerazione e alienazione. Per una teoria critica del tempo nella modernità, Torino, Einaudi, 2015.
Sanderson K. (2023), Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges, «Nature», 616, 7958, pp. 641-641. DOI:10.1038/d41586-023-01391-5.
Saul S. (2023), Stanford President Will Resign After Report Found Flaws in His Research, «The New York Times», 19 July. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/stanford-president-resigns-tessier-lavigne.html.
Shapin S. (1995), Cordelia’s love: credibility and the Social Studies of science, «Perspectives on Science», 3, 3, pp. 255-275.
Shen C., Björk B.-C. (2015), ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics, «BMC Medicine», 13, 230, pp. 1-15. DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
Sholto D. (2024), Dana-Farberications at Harvard University, blog «For Better Science», https://forbetterscience.com/2024/01/02/dana-farberications-at-harvard-university/ [link non disponibile: 21/03/2025].
Siler K. (2020), Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy, «Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology», 71, 11, pp. 1386-1401. DOI:10.1002/asi.24339.
Siler K., Lee K., Bero L. (2015), Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping, «Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences», 112, pp. 360-365.
Singer N. (2009), Merck Paid for Medical ‘Journal’ Without Disclosure, «The New York Times», 14 May. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/14vioxxside.html.
Slaughter S., Rhoades G. (2004), Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Markets, State, and Higher Education, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith R. (2024), Presentazione, in De Fiore L., Sul pubblicare in medicina. Impact factor, open access, peer review, predatory journal e altre creature misteriose, Roma, Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore, pp. XI-XX.
Sørensen K.H., Traweek S. (2022), Questing Excellence in Academia: A Tale of Two Universities, London, Routledge.
Sorokowski P., Kulczycki E., Sorokowska A., Pisanski K. (2017), Predatory journals recruit fake editor, «Nature News», 543, 7646, pp. 481-483. DOI:10.1038/543481a.
Special Committee-The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University & Office of the Board of Trustees (2023), Report. Stanford. https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/07/Scientific-Panel-Final-Report.pdf.
Spezi V., Wakeling S., Pinfield S., Creaser C., Fry J., Willett P. (2017), Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review, «Journal of Documentation», 73, 2, pp. 263-283.
Strathern M. (1997), ‘Improving Ratings’: Audit in the British University System, in «European Review», 5, 3, pp. 305-321.
Sylos Labini P. (1961), Oligopolio e progresso tecnico, Torino, Einaudi.
Symington J.W., Kramer T.R. (1977), Does Peer Review Work?, «American Scientist», 65, January, pp. 17-20.
Thomas W.I., Znaniecki F. (1918), The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Monograph of an Immigrant Group, Boston, Richard G. Badger.
Turner S., Chubin D. (2020), The Changing Temptations of Science, «Issues in Science and Technology», XXXVI, 3, pp. 40-46.
Universitets og høgskolerådet (2022), Referat fra møte 4. Mai 2022. https://www.khrono.no/files/2022/05/18/Referat-NPU-04-05-2022.pdf.
Van Noorden R. (2014), Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers, «Nature». DOI:10.1038/nature.2014.14763.
Wakefield A.J., Murch S.H., Anthony A., Linnell J., Casson D.M., Malik M., Berelowitz M., Dhillon A.P., Thomson M.A., Harvey P., Valentine A., Davies S.E., Walker-Smith J.A. (1998), Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, «Lancet», 351, pp. 637-641.
Waltman L., Larivière V., Milojević S., Sugimoto C.R. (2020), Opening science: The rebirth of a scholarly journal, «Quantitative Science Studies», 1, 1, pp. 1-3. DOI:10.1162/qss_e_00025.
Warner L.R., Shields S.A. (2013), The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity research at the crossroads, «Sex Roles», 68, 11, pp. 803-810.
Weber M. (1917), Wissenschaft als Beruf, in Weber M., Geistige Arbeit als Beruf. Vier Vorträge vor dem Freistudentischen Bund, München, Erster Vortrag, 1919; trad. it. Scienza come vocazione, in Weber M., Scienza come vocazione e altri testi di etica e scienza sociale, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1996, pp. 41-83.
Weber M. (1922), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen, Mohr; cit. dalla trad. it. Economia e società, I, Torino, Utet, 1968.
Wennerås C., Wold A. (1997), Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review, «Nature», 387, pp. 341-343.
Xia J. (2022), Predatory Publishing, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.
Xia J., Harmon J.L., Connoly K.G., Donnelly R.M., Anderson M.R., Howard H.A. (2015), Who publishes in “predatory” journals?, «Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology», 66, 7, pp. 1406-1417. DOI:10.1002/asi.23265.
Young N.S., Ioannidis J.P.A., Al-Ubaydli O. (2008), Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science, «PLOS Medicine», 5, 10, e201. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.
Ziman J.M. (1968), Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ziman J.M. (1983), The Bernal Lecture, 1983-The collectivization of science, «Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences», 219, pp. 1-19.
Ziman J.M. (2000), Real Science: What It Is and What It Means, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman H. (1977), Deviant Behavior and Social Control in Science, in Sagarin E. (ed.), Deviance and Social Change, Beverly Hills, Sage, pp. 87-138.