Junkification and the power of bibliodiversity
Abstract
Junkification is a word used to describe the proliferation of low quality digital materials. A recent peer-reviewed article has applied this term to academic publishing. To configure this alignment, these researchers build and reinforce the ideological confluence between open access and predatory journals. This inelegant assumption reifies the capacity of refereed research to circulate beyond paid subscriptions and high ‘author processing fees.’ Noting the corporatization of academic publishing, this article demonstrates the power of bibliodiversity, and the necessity to separate the word ‘predatory’ from the rigorous, transparent processes of refereeing in diamond open access journals.
Downloads
References
Albritton, R. (2013). Between obesity and hunger: the capitalist food industry. Food and culture: A reader, 3, 342-352.
Andringa, S., Mos, M., van Beuningen, C., González, P., Hornikx, J., & Steinkrauss, R. (2024). Diamond is a scientist’s best friend: Counteracting systemic inequality in open access publishing. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13.
ASJP. (2026). Algerian Scientific Journal Platform: https://asjp.cerist.dz/en
Asubiaro, T., Onaolapo, S., & Mills, D. (2024). Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage. Scientometrics, 129(3), 1469-1491.
Barbour, G., & Nicholls, S. (2019). Open Access: Should one model ever fit all?. AQ-Australian Quarterly, 90(3), 3-9.
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179-179.
Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(2), 589-597.
Beall, J. (2016). Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. International Higher Education, (86), 2-3.
Bowen, D. J., Ackermann, N., Thompson, V. S., Nederveld, A., & Goodman, M. (2022). A study examining the usefulness of a new measure of research engagement. Journal of general internal medicine, 37 (Suppl 1), 50-56.
Brabazon, T. (2016). Digital dieting: From information obesity to intellectual fitness. Routledge.
Brabazon, T. (2026). Disseminating your research with drive, intention and focus. Author’s Republic.
Brabazon, T., & Charlton, S. (2018). Paediatric physiotherapy and regional health. Libsyn. August 17: https://five.libsyn.com/show/episodes/view/6937361
Brabazon, T., & Charlton, S. (2019). How deterritorialization through digitization revisions a doctoral programme. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 6(1), 1-21.
Brooks, D. (2024). The Junkification of American Life. The New York Times, A22.
Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2026) https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/
Charlton, S., & Brabazon, T. (2020). Who is Excluded from ‘Universal’ Health Care? Rurality, the Marginalization of Health Services, and Moving Beyond Social Capital. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 7(3), 88-102.
Charlton, S., & Brabazon, T. (2022). What If the Four Yorkshiremen Managed Regional Health? Reconfiguring Administration, Management and Leadership in Allied Health beyond the Metropolis. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 9(1), 393.
CoARA. (2026) https://www.coara.org/
Crawford, W. (2015a). Open-access journals: Idealism and opportunism. American Library Association.
Crawford, W. (2015b). Sideshows and Leftovers. Library Technology Reports, 51(6), 28-31.
de Winter, J.C.F., Zadpoor, A.A. & Dodou, D. The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics 98, 1547–1565 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
Directory of Open Access Journals. (2026). www.doaj.org
Doctorow, Cory (2022). Social Quitting. Medium. November 15: https://doctorow.medium.com/social-quitting-1ce85b67b456
Doctorow, Cory (2023a). Social Quitting. Locus. 90.1: 29-49: https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/
Doctorow, Cory (2023b). The ‘Enshittification’ of TikTok. Wired. June 1: https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/
Doctorow, Cory (2024). Enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything. Financial Times. February 7: https://web.archive.org/web/20240208152542/https:/www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0-047b7d64aba5
Dubé, J. P. (2024). Amazon Private Brands: Self-Preferencing Versus Traditional Retailing. Antitrust Law Journal, 86(1), 115-148.
Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117-1166.
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, capitalism & critique, 11(2), 428-443.
HELIOS. (2026). Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship: https://www.heliosopen.org/
Hellström, T., & Hellström, C. (2017). Achieving impact: impact evaluations and narrative simplification. Prometheus, 35(3), 215-230.
Herrman, J. (2023). The Junkification of Amazon: Why does it feel like the company is making itself worse? New York Magazine: 23-25.
Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102–114.
Kaitlyn, T. (2023). AI-Generated Junk Is Flooding Etsy. The Atlantic. Jun. 15: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/ai-chatgpt-side-hustle/674415/
Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Harvey, C. (2009). Modelling the Outcome of the UK Business and Management Studies RAE 2008 with reference to the ABS Journal Quality Guide. Association of Business Schools.
Lansley, P. (2007). Making sense of research quality assessment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(1), 7-25.
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS one, 10(6), e0127502.
Lubin, N. (2024). What to do about the Junkification of the internet. The Atlantic, 12.
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3), 474-482. (2018).
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177.
Nazarovets, M. (2025). University journals: a semi-systematic literature review of trends, challenges and future research directions. Insights, 38(1).
Nazarovets, M., Laakso, M., & Taşkın, Z. (2026). University journals in the global academic publishing landscape: Mapping over 19,000 diverse titles based on Ulrich web data. Scientometrics, 1-29.
Nickel, P. M. (2015). The Man from Somewhere: Author, Affiliation, and Letterhead. In Culture, Politics and Governing: The Contemporary Ascetics of Knowledge Production. London: Palgrave Macmillan: 41-69.
Open Society Foundations (2026). https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
Packer, A., Suber, P., Kiley, R., Terry, R., Barbour, G., Eve, M. P., … & Babini, D. (2023). We so loved open access. ABEC Brasil.
Pendergrass, W., Johnson, M., Bacarella, R., & Pendergrass, P. (2025). A strategic cycle of slop: Understanding the commodification of AI feculence and its place in the attention economy. Issues in Information Systems, 26(4), 417-432.
Peruginelli, G., & Faro, S. (2024). Diamond open access: A viable approach to scholarly communication. Symphonya, (2), 66-74.
Pinfield, S. (2024). Achieving Global Open Access: The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032679259
Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12.
Predatory Journal. (2026). www.predatoryjournals.org
Ramkalawan, T., & Dieppe, P. (2008). Research capacity development and training. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(3_suppl), 6-11.
Rhodes, C., & Linnenluecke, M. K. (2025). The junkification of research. Organization, 13505084251399576.
Science Europe. (2022). Action Plan for Diamond Open Access: https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/t3jgyo3u/202203-diamond-oa-action-plan.pdf
Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Oct;95(4):442-5. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442. PMID: 17971893; PMCID: PMC2000776.
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT press.
Thomson, S. (2019). Letterhead bias and the demographics of elite journal publications. Harv. JL & Tech., 33, 203.
Tourish, D. and Willmott, H. (2015). In Defiance of Folly: Journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS Guide. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 26: 37-46.
Vine, R. (2006). Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(1), 97–99.
Wikipedia. (2026). Predatory Publishing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
