共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
2.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(3):102418
Jeffrey Beall, a US librarian, coined the term “predatory publishing” specifically to describe a movement or phenomenon of open access (OA) journals and publishers that he and others believed displayed exploitative and unscholarly principles. Using a blog to transmit those ideas, and profiling specific cases using blacklists, one of the most polemic aspects of Beall's blog was its tendency to attract and incite academic radicalism. Beall targeted both publishers and standalone journals, but how he precisely determined that an OA journal or a publisher was predatory was in many cases an ambiguity. Beall's deficient and highly subjective criteria, as well as those blacklists' incapacity to clearly distinguish low quality OA publishers from predatory ones, may have negatively impacted the operations of several Beall-blacklisted OA journals and publishers. Freedom of speech that embraces prejudice, via Beall's blog, and the establishment of “predatory” blacklists, are enhanced discriminatory ideologies that continue to be carried downstream from Beall to and by other like-minded individuals and groups who proliferate academic divisiveness and may also be formalizing and institutionalizing a culture of discriminative philosophies by cloning Beall's blacklists and encouraging their continued use. 相似文献
3.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(5):102187
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly “peer reviewed” papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of “peer review”, when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of “predatory publishing”, and is also a “fake” element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of “predatory publishing” is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged. 相似文献
4.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(6):102236
Predatory journals and publishers are a growing concern in the scholarly publishing arena. As one type of attempt to address this increasingly important issue, numerous individuals, associations, and companies have begun curating journal watchlists or journal safelists. This study uses a qualitative content analysis to explore the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated by scholarly publishing journal watchlists and safelists to better understand the content of these lists, as well as the larger controversies that continue to surround the phenomenon that has come to be known as predatory publishing. Four watchlists and ten safelists were analyzed through an examination of their published mission statements and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Notable differences that emerged include the remaining influence of librarian Jeffrey Beall in the watchlists, and the explicit disavowal of his methods for the safelists, along with a growing recognition that the “list” approach may not fully address systemic aspects of predatory publishing that go beyond the individual author's ethical decision-making agency. 相似文献
5.
Jennifer Huffman 《期刊图书馆员》2017,73(3-4):248-268
Similar to a study by Nelson and Huffman on the presence of predatory journals in aggregator databases, this study presents the results of a comparison between Jeffrey Beall’s List of Standalone Journals and a group of six commercial publisher and open access journal packages. A subject analysis of the predatory journals listed on Beall’s standalone journal list was also conducted along with an analysis of the trend in predatory publisher and journal growth. In the end, only a small number of predatory journals were found to exist within the publisher packages. The subject analysis of the journals on Beall’s standalone journal list revealed that most of the journals on his list were either multidisciplinary in nature or allied with science, medicine/health, and technology subjects. However, because the number of predatory journals discovered in the publisher packages was too small, a meaningful statement about the predominant subject areas of the predatory content found in the publisher packages could not be made. Finally, within the context of the publishing world at large, based on the historical development of predatory publishers and their journals, a dramatic increase in their growth is forecast. Because Beall’s lists of predatory publishers and standalone journals were often used by authors for guidance but are no longer available, several tools for evaluation of publisher and journal quality are summarized. 相似文献
6.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(1):102659
Cabell Publishing Co. (herein Cabells), a private Texas-based US company, filled a void left after the shutdown of Jeffrey Beall's blacklists or watchlists that categorized open access “predatory publishing”. In addition to a journal whitelist or safelist product, Journalytics, Cabells markets a product (Predatory Reports) for post-secondary institutions that lists journals' infractions and poor practices, and thus acts as a warning system for academics to determine if they might be dealing with a scholarly entity, or not. Predatory Reports consists of three levels of criteria, or “infractions” (severe, moderate, and minor), that correspond to eight categories. In this paper, we critically examined the Predatory Reports' 74 criteria to determine which of them are clear and useful, and which might be ambiguous or not entirely meaningful. We identified seven criteria that could be accepted as they are, 28 criteria that required clarification and revision, and 39 criteria that we believe should be eliminated. Our expectation is that once this and additional publishing-related criteria have been fully and carefully assessed, validated and parsed, that a community-based set of criteria will eventually become established to better guide academics about safe or risky publishing venues. 相似文献
7.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102481
The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system. 相似文献
8.
While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model. 相似文献
9.
Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers. 相似文献
10.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(1):102070
Screening criteria are a vital part of society, medicine and publishing. In this paper, a new framework, based on epidemiological principles, is developed to assess the effectiveness of criteria that are used to detect predatory behavior, or to assess whether a journal or publisher is predatory, and create blacklists. Applying epidemiological measures such as specificity, sensitivity, prevalence rates, the likelihood ratio, posterior and prior probabilities and odds, as well as Bayesian analysis, we elaborate on the false discovery rate and work towards assessing the likelihood that an entity is in fact predatory when screening criteria are used. We applied the framework to three different prevalence cases: a low prevalence rate where all journals are screened for predatory behavior assuming Jeffrey Beall's criteria are used; a higher rate when only open access journals are assessed; the highest rate where only Walt Crawford grayOA journals were screened for deceptive publishing practices. In all cases, we found a very high false discovery rate even when using reasonable values for the sensitivity and specificity rate for Beall's screening criteria. 相似文献
11.
Key points
- The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
- The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
12.
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2016,32(1):44-53
Retractions serve as one perspective of the publishing process, and can offer vast insight into the problems associated with basic research, with the traditional publishing platform, or with policies. Some established retraction guidelines exist, such as those established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, or COPE. This essay provides a perspective of stealth or silent retractions within the broader concept of retractions, and within the framework of the COPE retraction guidelines. The issue of opaque retraction notices, especially in the case of COPE members, as well as the prominence of questionable retraction policies among select “predatory” open access publishers, is emphasized. Select clear examples are provided. 相似文献
13.
Mike Downes 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):287-295
A total of 966 allegedly ‘predatory’ open access publishers were examined to determine the nature of their ethical or unethical practices and the extent to which Australian academics were included on the editorial boards of their journals. An estimated 4,000 Australian academics (ca. 7% of the academic population) are on these journal boards. Of the publishers, 240 proved to be overtly fraudulent, the ethical status of the others remaining unresolved. About 86% of the Australian academics identified appeared on the editorial boards of journals belonging to those 240 publishers. Despite two decades of advocacy from librarians, there remains widespread ignorance of the existence of such fraudulent publishers, and more severe action is required. Reform proposals include naming the publisher in all references and in academic profiles and curriculum vitae. Universities are encouraged to take responsibility for publishing journals that replace those currently causing the problem. Institutions are urged to augment their current warnings and advice with formal policies, which will probably require a blacklist of unacceptable publishers. New formal policies for dealing with predatory publishers are currently being developed in some Australian universities. 相似文献
14.
Library‐led publishing is one of the new approaches to journal publishing and open access that has grown tremendously in the last few years. A 2010 IMLS‐funded survey found that 55% of respondents – from US academic libraries of all different types and sizes – were already implementing or developing a publishing program. Library‐led publishing has garnered such momentum because, by offering low‐ or no‐cost publishing to university scholars, it addresses needs that traditional publishing has not been able to meet. This article presents a series of small case studies to illustrate different journals that have benefited from the library‐publishing model: (i) a journal that struggled to find an affordable publisher in its emerging field; (ii) a small society journal that could no longer afford to support itself in print; (iii) society publications that go beyond the traditional journal format; and (iv) a student journal with a revolving editorial board. 相似文献
15.
Greening the German book industry is a large-scale task. This article, based in part on the results of a one-day conference titled “Bio im Bücherregal?” (Engl. translation: “Eco-friendly products on the bookshelf?”) that was held in Mainz in January 2013, considers different perspectives on green publishing in Germany and presents the status quo as well as an outlook. After a brief historical and theoretical overview on the media and the environmental movement, the article presents current developments such as the initiative “Nachhaltig Publizieren” (“Green Publishing”). Initiated in 2011 by the publisher Oekom, the project has become a catalyst for the green publishing movement in Germany. In addition, this contribution introduces publishers and imprints, in particular of children’s books, that strive to fulfill the highest possible criteria for green publishing in certain project areas. Finally, the close connection between green publishing and green content is discussed. 相似文献
16.
Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality. 相似文献
17.
Mulubrhan Balehegn 《International Information and Library Review》2017,49(2):97-100
Recently, there has been an alarming increase in the number of “academic” papers published in vanity journals and publishers. Such journals, dubbed predatory because their main objective is making money out of authors, compromise or completely abandon the peer review system. An increase in publishing with such journals, which is common in developing counties, will affect the quality of science, excellence, development, and individual researchers' and institutions' professional reputation. In this article, the author discusses strategies for individual researchers and institutions for identifying and discouraging publishing in predatory journals. Moreover, suggestions on how to deal with faculty who have published and already bestowed positions on the grounds of papers published in predatory journals are also given. Strategies and suggestions discussed in this article can provide insights to librarians and publication officers on how to curb the problem of predatory publications. 相似文献
18.
Louisa Ha 《Learned Publishing》2003,16(3):193-199
This article re‐examines the economics of publishing scholarly journals and illustrates the dilemma of publisher identity and publication format with a case study of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's Media Management and Economics division. The study investigates the perceived interest and demand for a society‐published journal for the field of media management and economics and the preferred format for that journal – print or online. Results showed a divided opinion on the support of a society‐published journal and no consideration of the benefits or harms of journal publishing to the society. The print journal, though a desirable format for authors, is deemed uneconomical. The online journal is viewed as a feasible publication outlet, but its status as a prestigious journal is doubtful. Applications of scholarly journal publishing and economic models to the case are discussed. 相似文献
19.
Leo Walford 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1-2):99-103
Changes in journal publishing are often driven by the needs of the science community. Leo Walford, who is the Associate Director for Rights & Business Development for Sage Publications, highlighted differences between social science publishing and science publishing and discussed “why one size doesn't fit all.” 相似文献