首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 296 毫秒
1.
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   

2.
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.  相似文献   

3.
This study analyzes the current state of gold Open Access (OA) in India based on papers published in the Web of Science indexed journals. It specifically focuses on research output published in OA journals and examines the difference between gold OA and general research output for papers authored by Indian researchers. In order to analyze the Indian contribution of gold OA literature and compares with other countries, Web of Science?-Core Collection was used. There is an increasing trend of contributing research papers in OA journals by Indian researchers. Among the top 20 publishing countries India ranks 10th place in terms of the general research output, but secures 8th place in terms of gold OA papers. However, India's position in terms of share of gold OA publications is relatively higher than other leading countries of the world. Researchers in India mostly prefer to contribute their gold OA papers in Indian journals rather foreign journals and the proportion of gold OA research output in Clinical, Preclinical, Health, Life Sciences and Physicals Sciences is much higher than other disciplines such as Arts &; Humanities and Social Sciences. Since most of the research output in India is published in local journals, the study suggests further analyses of publications which are not published in Web of Science indexed journals.  相似文献   

4.
The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study of publishing behaviour among a group of Arab scholars in social science and humanities disciplines. The paper also investigated the number of Arab scholars who are publishing in predatory journals and the reasons that drive them to select these journals to share their scholarly findings. The study adopted a mixed methods approach. Eighteen journals that were categorized as predatory journals were scanned to find the number of Arab scholars who published in them. Then, a questionnaire was sent to Egyptian and Saudi scholars as they were found to be the top Arab contributors in these journals. The questionnaire was followed by semi‐structured interviews to gain an in‐depth understanding of the publishing behaviour. The data showed that many Arab scholars prefer publishing in predatory journals as these journals are easier and faster. The results also indicate that there is a need to raise the awareness of the harm that predatory journals can cause to the scholars and how they can avoid these journals. This study was conducted with social science and humanities scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The publishing behaviour may differ in other scholarly disciplines and other Arabic countries.  相似文献   

5.
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   

6.
BackgroundThe number of predatory journals is constantly growing and creating a major threat. Researchers in biomedical sciences should be aware of predatory publishers and be able to recognize them.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge about predatory journals both before and after showing them an infographic explaining these journals and their publishing model.MethodsThis study was conducted with a sample of biomedical researchers and students. Subjects answered two questionnaires, one before explaining a designed infographic to each participant through a direct face-to-face interview.ResultsA total of 158 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 22.6 (±1.72) years. They were 122 (77.2%) undergraduates and 36 (22.8%) graduate students. The median number of research projects our subjects participated in was 1 (0–5), and the median number of published projects was 0 (0–3). Awareness of predatory journals or Beall's List improved from 7% and 2.5%, respectively, before the infographic to 97.5% and 94.9% after the infographic.ConclusionOur results indicate the beneficial use of the designed infographic to improve young researchers' awareness of predatory journals. We encourage research institutions and universities to effectively spread awareness of predatory journals.  相似文献   

7.
Objective: The purpose of this study is to analyse Iranian scientific publications in the neuroscience subfields by librarians and neuroscientists, using Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) via Web of Science data over the period, 2002–2008. Methods: Data were retrieved from the SCIE. Data were collected from the ‘subject area’ of the database and classified by neuroscience experts into 14 subfields. To identify the citation patterns, we applied the ‘impact factor’ and the ‘number of publication’. Data were also analysed using HISTCITE, Excel 2007 and SPSS. Results: Seven hundred and thirty‐four papers have been published by Iranian between 2002 and 2008. Findings showed a growing trend of neuroscience papers in the last 3 years with most papers (264) classified in the neuropharmacology subfield. There were fewer papers in neurohistory, psychopharmacology and artificial intelligence. International contributions of authors were mostly in the neurology subfield, and ‘Collaboration Coefficient’ for the neuroscience subfields in Iran was 0.686 which is acceptable. Most international collaboration between Iranians and developed countries was from USA. Eighty‐seven percent of the published papers were in journals with the impact factor between 0 and 4; 25% of papers were published by the researchers affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Conclusion: Progress of neuroscience in Iran is mostly seen in the neuropharmacology and the neurology subfields. Other subfields should also be considered as a research priority by health policymakers. As this study was carried out by the collaboration of librarians and neuroscientists, it has been proved valuable for both librarians and policymakers. This study may be encouraging for librarians from other developing countries.  相似文献   

8.
This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not.  相似文献   

9.
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   

10.
Over the years, the number of journals indexed in Scopus has increased, although it varies significantly between countries. The increasing proportion of international journals of a country provides new venues for papers from that country to be seen by other researchers worldwide. In this work, we evaluate the relationship of a country’s scientific performance or publication success with both its journals’ quantity and quality. The specific objective of the study is to identify the relationship between the country’s publication success and the quantity and quality of those country’s journals indexed in Scopus during 2005–2014. The publication success of 102 individual countries, measured by their scientific productivity, impact and collaboration indicators, the quantity of country’s Scopus-indexed journals in 2014 (a total of 22,581 journals) as well as the quantity of its journals were investigated. Scopus-indexed journals are predominantly from Western Europe (48.9%) and North America (27.7%), with the United States and the United Kingdom dominate with a total 51%. The contribution from the peripheral countries is comparatively small, however there are a good number of contributions from the South-East Asian countries. Estonia is the fastest growing country in terms of having indexed journals in Scopus, following by Iran and Malaysia. Among the studied indices, it was found that publication success (total publications and total citations) of 102 countries are strongly correlated with quantity (number of indexed journals and number of documents published in indexed journals) and quality (citations per paper, SJR, h-index, CiteScore and SNIP) indicators of country’s journals. We can conclude that the scientific productivity of a country depend critically on the number of journals indexed from that country in citation databases. The study provides a context with which the relative success of publications can be assessed, yielding new insights into the scientific impact of individual countries and the performance of journals that they published.  相似文献   

11.
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   

12.
This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated where predatory/fake journals (PFJs) are founded, which countries’ researchers publish more frequently in PFJs, the identity of the editors of PFJs, why researchers publish in PFJs, and what factors encourage such publications. A survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews were used to collect data. The results indicate that the majority of PFJs are located in developing countries; 119 journals provided incorrect postal addresses; the greatest number of researchers who published in PFJs are from India, Nigeria, and Turkey, suggesting that most of the publications in PFJs are submitted by researchers in developing countries; the interviewed Turkish researchers submitted their articles to PFJs in pursuit of rapid academic promotion; the incentive allowance system encourages researchers to publish in PFJs; and the well-known “publish-or-perish” pressure and unawareness are other potential factors that drive participants to submit their papers to PFJs.  相似文献   

13.
十年来我国数字图书馆研究统计分析   总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6  
赵秀君 《图书情报工作》2005,49(8):99-102,71
对1994-2003年这10年间刊载在我国15种图书情报学核心期刊上的有关数字图书馆研究的论文进行定量分析,分析的内容具体包括：各年度发文情况、论文产出期刊源及其分布、论文及作者的地区分布和系统分布、作者人均发文量、核心作者的地域分布及其论文的主题分布等。从中,可以了解我国数字图书馆研究的现状及存在的问题。  相似文献   

14.
Predatory publishing has become a much‐discussed and highly visible phenomenon over the past few years. One widespread, but hardly tested, assumption is the idea that articles published in predatory journals deviate substantially from those published in traditional journals. In this paper, we address this assumption by utilizing corpus linguistic tools. We compare the ‘academic‐like’ nature of articles from two different journals in political science, one top‐ranking and one alleged predatory. Our findings indicate that there is significant linguistic variation between the two corpora along the dimensions that we test. The articles display notable differences in the types and usage of keywords in the two journals. We conclude that articles published in so‐called predatory journals do not conform to linguistic norms used in higher‐quality journals. These findings may demonstrate a lack of quality control in predatory journals but may also indicate a lack of awareness and use of such linguistic norms by their authors. We also suggest that there is a need for the education of authors in science writing as this may enable them to publish in higher‐ranked and quality‐assured outlets.  相似文献   

15.
  相似文献   

16.
Scientists from smaller countries have problems gaining visibility for their research. Does open access publishing provide a solution? Slovenia is a small country with around 5000 medical doctors, 1300 dentists and 1000 pharmacists. A search of Slovenia’s Bibliographic database was carried out to identity all biomedical journals and those which are open access. Slovenia has 18 medical open access journals, but none has an impact factor and only 10 are indexed by Slovenian and international bibliographic databases. The visibility and quality of medical papers is poor. The solution might be to reduce the number of journals and encourage Slovenian scientists to publish their best articles in them. JM  相似文献   

17.
The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist.  相似文献   

18.
Abstract

Using a scientometric approach, this study examines scholarly publications by library and information science (LIS) researchers affiliated with Iranian institutions that were published in non-Iranian journals and indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database, together with publications in Iranian LIS journals from 1980 through 2016. The results show that Iranian authors published 538 LIS documents indexed in WoS and another 7,837 in national journals. The research article was the predominant document type at both the national and international levels. The total number of international publications in LIS by all countries was 313,449; Iran ranked 34th among the countries for publications in LIS.  相似文献   

19.
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   

20.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号