Today, we are once again excited to present our critical analysis of the article "The Impact of Digital Transformation and Dyadic Learning on Knowledge Exchange Dynamics Through CPEC as Mediating Factor," published in Sage Open (Clarivate's SSCI IF for 2023: 2; Scopus Q1; DOAJ). In our previous articles, we provided ample evidence that for-profit entities like Clarivate and Scopus and biased companies like Director of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) love to index journals publishing non-peer-reviewed and unedited papers. In this article, our readers will learn that Sage Open publishes everything authors submit in exchange for a hefty fee. By the way, we are not sure about the actual Article Processing Charges (APC) levy on authors. Strangely, on Sage Open website, they mention an APC of USD 2100 but predatory Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) mentions USD 1600. We are surprised to know that Sage Open increased its APC from USD 1600 to USD 2100 for publishing erroneous and non-reviewed papers. Last year, when we published our criticism on an article published in Sage Open, i.e., SAGE Open Publishes False Hypotheses Testing Results: An Easy to Publish Outlet, the APC was USD 1600. What a sham! Really, it is very easy for these publishers to make you a fool.

After reading our analysis, you could easily conclude that Sage Open publishes articles without any proofreading/copyediting/language editing. Please give a look to the below snapshot picked from page 2-3 of the published PDF:

Are you shocked? Look at the level of mistakes. The editors and reviewers are not even able to catch basic language mistakes. If the article were properly language edited, the above statement should look like this:

The dyadic learning theory is rooted in social learning theories, which study how knowledge is acquired and exchanged through an interactive relationship among two entities or individuals (Thrasher et al., 2020). Sendjaya et al. (2020) posit that the theory of dyadic learning was introduced in psychology, where the behavior of two individuals sharing and learning from each other is examined. The core principles of this theory include cooperative knowledge exchange, contextual learning, and mutual understanding of knowledge. This theory poses that individuals learn more effectively through interactive engagement with others, moving away from conventional models, which focus on individual cognition (Staff et al., 2020).

The article is full of language blunders; even the abstract of the article is full of errors. How could any responsible journal publish any article without proper editing? We question.

Let’s look at the framework (Figure 1) of this study given below:

On page 6, the authors propose the following hypothesis:

“Hypothesis 3: CPEC mediates the relationship between dyadic learning and knowledge exchange.”

In the given framework, is CPEC variable a mediating variable? Not at all. This is a clearly wrong research framework. In the given framework, CPEC serves as a dependent variable. If the article was properly reviewed, this stern blunder would not have happened.

In Hypothesis 4, the authors conjecture:

“Hypothesis 4: Technological adoption moderates the relationship between dyadic learning and knowledge exchange.”

The framework also shows that Technological Adoption also moderates the relationship between Digital Transformation and Knowledge Exchange, but the authors completely forget to propose and test this relationship. Editors of Sage Open are truly wonderful. They are doing their best to publish flawed science and blossom predatory practices.

Under "Research Methodology" section (p. 6), the authors mention that data were collected from 200 participants, but on page 7 they mention that 159 participants participated in the study. Wow! What a dissonance! We wonder if data were collected from 200 participants, how 159 individuals participated in the study. Meh, we are not impressed with the professionalism of the editors.

Our psychometrics expert informed us that on page 6 the authors mention, “For data collection, a self-developed and self-administered survey was initiated.” The study tested five (5) variables, and all scales were developed by the authors. Unfortunately, we cannot find any information on the actual items of all scales, their face validity, content validity, how items were created, etc. The authors do provide the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), but we have no idea whether only the same study sample filled out the initial questionnaire or different ones or how many times the questionnaires were filled out by relevant participants to reach the final scale. Anyhow, standard scientific methods to develop new scales were not followed at all. The study tests hypotheses using data captured following unscientifically developed scales with no information on proper scale development.

We wonder how an editor having basic knowledge of psychometrics can allow publication of such unreliable and unscientific work.

The article does not mention in the “Methodology” section which technique and software were used to test study hypotheses. By looking at the “Data Analysis” section (Figure 3/Figure 4) and fit indices, one came to know that the authors used Path Analysis in AMOS. But the moderation and mediation analyses results are highly questionable. The study framework shows that the model is a moderated mediation model, which cannot be analyzed in the way reported by the authors. Just look at Figure 4. Which, according to the authors, reflects path analysis to test moderation and mediation. Where are the interaction terms, i.e., dyadic learning*technological adoption and digital transformation*technological adoption?

Based on the evidence we provided, we are right to say that Sage Open publishes junk in exchange for USD 2100/1600. Authors willing to publish their papers to fulfill university requirements are very happy with this journal because this journal publishes anything authors submit. Publishing papers with no or relaxed review, no language/orthographic editing, no proofreading, and publishing stern errors in framework and methodology are all primary indicators of predatory publishing. We recommend immediate retraction of this article.

Don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and experiences with Sage Open.

Click to Read Previous Article