Evidence Engines: Common Rhetorical Features of Fraudulent Academic Articles

Written Communication Apr 2022

Evidence Engines: Common Rhetorical Features of Fraudulent Academic Articles

Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder Oregon State University

Abstract

Predatory publishers deliver neither the editorial oversight, nor the peer review of legitimate publishers, and benefit from those whose positions require academic publications. These publishers also provide a home for conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters, as their lack of scrutiny offers fraudulent academic research articles a veneer of scholarly credibility. While most predatory journals were designed to dupe researchers, the fraudulent articles they often publish are designed to be found by members of the public, and their accessibility ensures that unlike legitimate research, they are likely to be employed as evidence by those seeking evidence. While studies have examined the common features of predatory journals, their emails, and their websites, this essay situates fraudulent academic articles in posttruth discourse, offers a taxonomy of illegitimate research articles, and highlights their common rhetorical features, in the hopes that the concepts discovered here can further contribute to pedagogy and public understanding.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2022-04-01
DOI: 10.1177/07410883211069332
Open Access: Closed
Topics: multimodality scientific writing disability studies revision

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

Fahnestock (2025)

The Controversy behind the Controversies: Scientific Discourse in the Twenty-Fi…

Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Mehlenbacher et al. (2025)

Misinformation As Genre Function: Insights on the Infodemic from a Genre-Theore…

Technical Communication Quarterly

Cites in this index (7)

Lu et al. (2016)

Guest Editors’ Introduction: Translingual Work

College English
Walsh (2013)

Resistance and Common Ground as Functions of Mis/aligned Attitudes

Written Communication
Hanauer et al. (2011)

Quantifying the Burden of Writing Research Articles in a Second Language

Written Communication
Ross (2009)

ARS Dictaminis Perverted: The Personal Solicitation E-Mail as a Genre

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Canagarajah (2006)

The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued

College Composition and Communication

Show all 7 →

Secor et al. (2004)

A Rhetorical Perspective on the Sokal Hoax

Written Communication
Charney (2003)

Lone Geniuses in Popular Science

Written Communication

Also cites 35 works outside this index ↓

10.1016/j.ijwd.2016.08.002

↗
10.1080/17524032.2018.1527378

↗
10.1038/526613f

↗
10.1126/science.342.6154.60

↗
10.1177/1329878X20946113

↗
10.7330/9781607327912

↗
10.1353/rap.2010.0222

↗
10.14321/j.ctt7zt5wp

↗
10.26818/9780814213612

↗
10.1007/s10805-019-09346-0

↗
10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

↗
10.1080/19393555.2020.1804647

↗
10.1080/00083968.2005.10751326

↗
10.1080/10570318109374052

↗
10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y

↗
10.1177/0963662514559891

↗
10.2307/1512118

↗
10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.5

↗
10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027

↗
10.1002/asi.23521

↗
10.1177/0162243920923087

↗
10.2307/25472180

↗
10.2307/j.ctt1w76tbg

↗
10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003

↗
10.1177/0270467614529707

↗
10.26818/9780814214350

↗
10.4324/9781315442044

↗
10.37514/ATD-J.2018.15.1.03

↗
10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

↗
10.4324/9781315442044-3

↗
10.37016/mr-2020-015

↗
10.1371/journal.pone.0130422

↗
10.1177/1750698017701615

↗
10.1002/asi.23265

↗
10.1080/00028533.1990.11951482

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 7 View in citation network →