This article contributes to the debate on the quality of open access publishing by examining the prevalence and consequences of predatory publishing in Green HRM. Green HRM has grown rapidly as a research area, but the number of journal publications about it remains limited, and we were thus able to study the whole literature in this field over an approximately 30-year period. Our analysis suggests not only that publications in ranked journals have an impact on papers published in questionable (so-called “predatory”) journals, but also the other way around. Through citations, questionable research contributes to the impact of quality publications. Even more importantly, we found that articles published in ranked journals legitimize pseudo-knowledge by referencing to questionable literature and thus facilitate the infiltration of unreliable or misleading findings into the broader body of academic knowledge. Although the sample consists of one specific area of research, we suggest that our findings can be transferred to other areas of HRM and management research. We discuss practical implications to different stakeholders and end with a plea and recommendations for more awareness and responsibility in the publication process.
Muller-Camen et al. (Thu,) studied this question.