Abstract
“Predatory journals” are profit-oriented journals which ignore academic quality. In 2014 Jeffrey Beall, a librarian from the University of Colorado Denver, compiled two lists in order to highlight this issue: one which listed questionable publishers and another which listed questionable standalone journals. He insisted that these publishers and journals were “corrupt” and that they “exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts” (Beall 2014). In his study of “bogus journals”, Renandya (2014, pp. 4–7) identified the key characteristics of predatory journals as: (1) publication fees; (2) high frequency publication; (3) an extremely high acceptance rate; (4) quick turnaround times; (5) a rapid review process; and (6) low or extremely uneven quality of published articles. While Beall’s (2014) and Renandya’s (2014) contributions to the detection of predatory publishers are very important, there is currently a lack of available information on the generic structure of the predatory publishers’ call for papers. As the first point of contact for many academic writers, the call for papers plays a vital part in early detection of predatory publishers. This chapter addresses this issue by analysing the generic structure of 25 calls for papers using Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The chapter draws from Martin’s work on genre as “…staged, goal oriented” and “purposeful activity” (2009, p. 13) and Halliday’s features of field, tenor and mode that exist within the context of situation in SFL (Halliday 1978; Halliday and Hasan 1985/1989), to interpret the social context of the predatory call for papers. Further analyses of the appraisal devices (Martin and White 2005) and lexico-grammatical choices within the texts were conducted and are outlined in this chapter (Halliday and Matthiesen 2014; Sardinha 2013), with some analysis of the spoken and written forms of text emerging in the email (Halliday 1989). Beall’s (2014) and Renandya’s (2014) concepts were used to identify the 25 predatory emails used in this study. Understanding the generic structure and the lexico-grammatical construction is beneficial to writers seeking to publish their work in reputable circles.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beall, J. (2014). Predatory Journals. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/. Accessed 9th February 2014.
Brown, H., & Cook, M. (2013). Unscrupulous journal solicitations: What they are, what they do, and how you can protect yourself? The Language Teacher, 37(3), 48–50.
Brown, H., Cook, M., & Adamson, J. (2013). In response to Robert O’Mochain: A follow up to “Unscropulous journal solicitations”. The Language Teacher, 37(6), 49–50.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London/New York: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985/1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiesen, C. (2014). Introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduate gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303–324.
Markowitz, D. M., Powell, J. H., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). The writing style of predatory publishers. Presented at 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, June 15–18.
Martin, J. R. (2002). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistic, 22, 52–74.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave.
Mickan, P. (2013). Language curriculum design and socialisation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Renandya, W. (2014). What are bogus journals and why should we avoid them. Beyond Words, 2(2), 1–17.
Sardinha, T. B. (2013). Lexicogrammar. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–5). New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Yan, W. (2015). “Call for papers”: Analysis of the schematic structure and lexico-grammar of CFPs for academic conferences. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 39–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wahyudi, R. (2017). The Generic Structure of the Call for Papers of Predatory Journals: A Social Semiotic Perspective. In: Mickan, P., Lopez, E. (eds) Text-Based Research and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59849-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59849-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59848-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59849-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)