科研诚信视域下掠夺性期刊研究综述

[目的/意义]梳理国内外掠夺性期刊相关研究,为后续研究提供参考。[方法/过程]采用文献阅读法与网络调查法,从基础理论、特征指标、国别分布、运行模式等方面对掠夺性期刊进行调查。[结果/结论]掠夺性期刊衍生出系列相关概念,其背后有着深刻的理论根源;掠夺性期刊会随着时代发展呈现一些新特征,因而需要更智能的方法来识别和追踪这类期刊;科研不发达的发展中国家是掠夺性期刊的主要发源地和受害者;掠夺性期刊在创办、盈利和传播过程中仿造正规期刊的运行模式,其治理难度增加。未来研究可以聚焦5个方面:掠夺性期刊概念界定、掠夺性行为特征的追踪、人工智能辅助精准识别、完善同行评议审查机制、跨国的交流与合作治理。     

开放与掠夺：掠夺性期刊的比较特征、产生缘由与应对策略

随着开放获取的持续深入,掠夺性期刊出现并影响学术生态的健康发展,引起国内外学术界的广泛关注。文章从掠夺性期刊与OA期刊对比的视角出发,利用横向比较法深入剖析两者在出版本质、出版流程、地域分布、期刊影响方面的差异。从成因上看,掠夺性期刊与OA期刊的差异源于资本对科学的进一步掠夺,是OA期刊质量控制的缺陷、全球开放获取发展失衡和不合理的学术成果评价体系共同作用的结果。面对困境,我国应积极应对以减少掠夺性期刊带来的不利影响。     

掠夺性期刊的热议与冷思考北大核心CSSCI

掠夺性期刊近来在国内外受到热议,掠夺性期刊其实早已存在,也与开放获取没有直接关系。掠夺性期刊需要治理,但根治很难,学术界如果直接控制一定数量的钻石开放获取学术期刊,将有助于治理掠夺性期刊;治理的同时要特别注意区分掠夺性期刊和资源不足期刊;在打击掠夺性期刊的同时,还要保护好多种多样的学术期刊出版新模式。为了避免被误列入掠夺性期刊,我国学术期刊界要加强自律、主动公开透明、严谨细致、科学宣传。     

掠夺性科技期刊与科技期刊中掠夺性现象的特征研究

近年来,由于开放存取(OA)出版模式的兴起,掠夺性科技期刊的出现也引起国内外学者的关注。国内科技期刊中也存在着类似的管理和学术信誉差、商业利益至上的现象,并对正常的科研成果和出版资源形成了干扰和掠夺。本文将这些存在于国内外科技期刊中的掠夺现象一并回顾和总结,认为一方面国内科技期刊从业者,应重视和适应新兴OA期刊的发展趋势,另一方面相关科研管理部门也应逐步建立措施,完善掠夺性期刊预警制度。     

国外开放获取期刊的同行评议方式研究

通过网络调研和文献梳理的方式,结合具体案例,如Elsevier、Nature、PLoS、F1000 Research等,对国外开放获取期刊的同行评议方式进行研究.认为结构化同行评议、发表后开放式同行评议以及第三方独立同行评议,各有利弊,应该取长补短,优化评议方式,更好地发挥科技期刊作为学术质量把关者和过滤器的作用.     

警惕国外“开放存取杂志”及“掠夺性期刊”的陷阱

本文指出了“开放存取杂志”背后的商业性质,以实例显示了从“开放存取杂志”向“掠夺性期刊”的过渡,并着重指出:近年中国作者大量在这类性质可疑的杂志上发表论文,既造成中国科研经费的大量流失,也造成对中国学术界整体形象的伤害.     

Beilstein与BMC合作出版开放获取期刊

Belstein公司出版了有机化学的开放获取期刊Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry（http：／／www．beilstein-joumals．org）。该期刊是联机同行评议期刊，由Beilstein与BMC合作出版。作为开放获取期刊，该刊允许全世界读者对所有内容永久性地免费获取。该期刊为读者提供高效的审稿、快速的出版、高显示度。没有出版费用，作者保留文章的版权。作者投稿的文章应该是原创的、没有在其它任何地方出版的文章。     

基于QCA的掠夺性期刊识别方法研究

【目的】探索掠夺性期刊的识别方法,为治理掠夺性期刊、提升学术出版质量、净化学术生态环境作贡献。【方法】借助扎根理论的研究方法,对23篇关于“掠夺性期刊”研究的文献资料进行摘录提炼,分析出掠夺性期刊的特征要素,并将这些特征要素用fs QCA软件进行条件组态分析。【结果】最终得出四条不同条件变量的组合路径,通过对各变量的影响因素作出大小比对,得出由期刊、作者、学术影响三因素具体细节识别出的条件组态路径,方便人们更好地识别掠夺性期刊。【结论】基于QCA方法得出的组态路径,大大提高了识别掠夺性期刊的准确性,可为人们判断掠夺性期刊提供理论和实践支持。     

期刊开放同行评议的价值、机制及应对策略研究

对国外开放同行评议(OPR)的期刊进行研究,分析了开放同行评议的模式;详细介绍了开放同行评议的主要价值;从透明度和开放性2个维度出发,讨论了开放同行评议的3个层次及其机制。参照7大公开要素,对开放同行评议期刊的透明度进行了等级划分,并研究了透明度等级对相对引用率RCR和社会关注度Altmetrics评分的影响。结果表明：透明度等级高的开放同行评议期刊在学术影响和社会传播力方面具有明显优势。最后,提出了一些应对开放同行评议的策略和建议,以期为科技期刊开放同行评议的开展提供参考与借鉴。     

Thousands of Australian academics on the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers

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.     

Keep calm and carry on: moral panic,predatory publishers,peer review,and the emperor's new clothes

The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated. It is important, however, to resist the urge to simply join in this crusade without pausing to examine the assumptions upon which such concerns are based. It is often assumed that established journals are almost sacrosanct, and that their quality, secured by peer review, is established. It is also routinely presumed that such journals are immune to the lure of easy money in return for publication. Rather than looking at the deficits that may be apparent in the practices and products of predatory publishers, this commentary invites you to explore the weaknesses that have been exposed in traditional academic journals but are seldom discussed in the context of predatory publishing. The inherent message for health and medical services staff, researchers, academics, and students is, as always, to critically evaluate all sources of information, whatever their provenance.     

科技期刊公开发表专家审稿意见的方法及意义

专家审稿意见是科技期刊在同行评议过程中学术价值最高的部分,具有一定的发表价值,但在目前多数科技期刊普遍实行的盲法审稿方式下,审稿意见只在专家、编辑和作者之间传递,造成学术资源的巨大浪费。而今同行评议方式向着更多元、更公开的方向发展,公开发表专家审稿意见可以作为实施开放式同行评议的尝试和突破,具有可行性和实践意义。本文建议采取先“精选”后“普及”、逐步推进的审稿意见发表方式,总结出精选审稿意见的遴选标准和程序,讨论了公开发表专家审稿意见对编辑工作的意义,以期为促进同行评议模式的转变,实施开放式同行评议打下基础。     

学术期刊同行评议中的学术不端行为及防范

以国家新闻出版署发布的CY/T 174-2019《学术出版规范期刊学术不端行为界定》为参照,探讨了同行评议中学术不端行为的类型及成因.为更好地防范此类学术不端行为,学术期刊及编辑应对专家信息定期进行更新和维护,及时淘汰不合格审稿专家;强化编辑初审力度,控制稿件送审频次;加强交流互动,提高稿件送审精准性和有效性;完善期刊...     

国外学术论文开放存取平台建设分析

本研究以开放获取的建设模式入手,将当前各国学术论文的开放获取实践平台分为开放存取仓储平台建设和开放存取期刊平台建设,并针对各个国家的学术论文开放存取实践进行统一的梳理。然后对各个国家平台建设的推动力量和国家的政策导向加以分析。本研究认为,图书馆、科研机构等是开放存取平台建设的推动力量,在开放存取平台建设过程中的重要性不容忽视;开放存取的金色模式和绿色模式两种运作模式的选择需要考虑平台建设所处的具体环境;准确的平台性质和学科定位对后期开放存取平台的竞争力来说有一定的影响意义。     

学术论文同行评审:过去·现状·未来

研究同行评审制度有助于审视学术交流与出版过程,以检验对学术成果的审查和管理工作的合理性,包括评审结果的正确性和评审方法的公平性,并进而为同行评审制度的发展和完善提供参考依据.文章简要介绍同行评审的发展历程,阐述并探讨学术论文同行评审的作用以及存在和面临的问题,并分析同行评审的发展趋势.     

Publisher Package and Open Access Journals: Are Any of Them Predatory?

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.     

科技期刊开展同行评议的实施举措和实操技巧——以《中国化学工程学报(英文版)》为例

浅析同行评议的重要性及其局限性,指出编辑在科技期刊同行评议环节中角色定位.基于《中国化学工程学报(英文版)》的办刊实践,阐述了同行评议期刊在建立和完善制度、调整办刊机制、重视专家队伍建设、加强审稿数据库建设以及搭建技术支撑平台并提供全面服务保障等方面的具体举措.最后,从专职编辑视角,列举稿件送审环节中的实操技巧,如明确...