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。     

Counterpoints about predatory open access and knowledge publishing in Africa

The promise of open access (OA) as a replacement for existing scientific information dissemination ethos and practice has been contentious, with the interests of different stakeholders – countries, publishers, and OA activists, among others – clashing on an unprecedented scale. This paper examines some of the challenges that have been triggered by the OA movement, particularly at the Africa regional level. Basically, OA is technology heavy and its economic arrangements benefit mainly the developed world. There is evidence of OA initiatives in Africa, but these initiatives are mainly individually based, defragmented, and largely underdeveloped, and sometimes predatory. This author argues that policy‐makers in Africa need to embrace OA and establish useful policies – for regional journals and regional repositories and for academic reward, and support this with technical investment to enable quality online publishing.     

充实生物医学期刊的人文内涵

越来越多的读者希望媒体能从人的长远发展考虑,拓展信息的人文内涵,关心人的成长需求,以促进人类心智的成熟和价值观的实现。生物医学期刊作为一种精神文化产品,必须以读者为本,全面了解读者的阅读需求,精心筛选、编排读者喜闻乐见的内容,突出信息的人文价值,使生物医学期刊更具人文色彩,进而在读者中产生极强的亲和力,形成读者乐于阅读,并将之视为一种享受、一种习惯的良好氛围。     

科技期刊编辑是科研人员的一部分

针对目前中国科学院期刊队伍的现状,提出科技期刊编辑是科研人员一部分的观点,建议从制度上明确科技期刊编辑的科研人员属性,以推动中国科学院期刊的健康发展。     

Publishing in predatory open access journals: Authors' perspectives

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.     

E‐journals,researchers — and the new librarians

This paper provides the results of a two‐year investigation into the use of e‐journals by the UK research community. Log analysis, questionnaires, interviews, and observation were used to collect the information. The results are presented in a FAQ format to make the key findings accessible. The main findings are that journals have become central to most disciplines, and that the e‐form has become the prime means of access. The results for history suggest that the old scholarly communication mantras (scientists primarily communicate through articles, historians through monographs) are rapidly breaking down. Indeed, all researchers seem addicted to journal content. Research without this resource now seems unthinkable; journals are a researcher's lifeblood. Gateway services, hugely popular in science, are re‐intermediating the broken chain between publisher and reader; they are the new librarians.     

Linguistic differences between well‐established and predatory journals: a keyword analysis of two journals in political science

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.     

The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers and journals

Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not.     

利用知识服务与知识传播提升学术期刊品牌影响力

学术期刊要重视知识服务与知识传播.引领学科发展,为行业服务,是学术期刊的办刊宗旨;通过多种渠道,加大知识传播,是学术期刊的重要责任.文章以《航空学报》编辑部办刊为例,通过约、组综述稿件,策划出版专刊、专栏,引领学科发展;通过开展科技论文写作讲座,提供知识服务;通过开放存取(OA)、论文推送、搭建微信公众平台等多种渠道,加速知识传播,最终提升期刊的品牌影响力.     

An Altmetrics and citation analysis of selected predatory journals in library and information science field

PurposeThis paper aims to examine whether Altmetric data can be used as an indicator for identifying predatory journals.Design/methodology/approachThis is an applied study which uses citation and Altmetrics methods. The study selected 21 predatory journals from the Beall's list and Kscien's list, as well as 18 non-predatory open access journals from the DOAJ's list, in the field of Library and Information Science. The Altmetric score for articles published in these journals was obtained from the Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Web of Science was used to search for citation data of articles published in these journals.FindingsThe predatory journals almost have no presence in social media, with poor Altmetric score. In contrast, non-predatory open access journals have a high presence rate and Altmetric score. There is a significant positive correlation between the number of articles cited and the number of articles having Altmetric score among non-predatory open-access journals, but not among predatory journals. Poor Altmetric score may be viewed as a potential characteristic of predatory journals, but other indicators would also need to be considered to determine whether a journal is predatory.Originality/valueDistinct from the traditional research methods, this study combined citation analysis and Altmetrics analysis. By comparing the characteristics of predatory journals and non-predatory open access journals, the findings contribute to the identification of predatory journals.     

在线知识付费对科技期刊知识服务建设的启示

随着科技的发展和信息传播方式的转变,知识服务建设已成为科技期刊发展中的重要一环,如何在建设过程中实现社会效益与经济效益的双赢显得尤为重要。文章借鉴在线知识付费行业的发展经验,通过梳理在线知识付费行业的商业逻辑、产业分工及主要模式,提出了科技期刊知识服务建设的发展要点和盈利模式。鉴于在线知识付费行业的发展经验,科技期刊知识服务应坚持内容导向、以用户为中心,通过灵活多样的形式扬长避短,并可根据自身类型与特点尝试开展期刊知识问答、期刊论文音频讲解、学术专栏、技术咨询等服务,深耕读者群体,提高经济效益,扩大科技期刊影响力,实现科技期刊的可持续发展。     

学术期刊在知识创新中的特殊作用

通过对学术期刊与学术专著在形式、内容、编辑工作特点等方面的比较，分析了学术期刊作为知识、信息的重要传播媒介和载体在知识创新中的特殊地位与作用；认为应该充分重视学术期刊的价值，学术期刊编辑要不断提高自身素质，努力提高刊物的水平和质量，更好地为知识创新服务。     

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.     

论高校学报对在校研究生作者群的培养

随着在校研究生队伍的迅速发展,高校学报要重视在校研究生作者群体的培养.通过传播科技写作知识的方式,并在具体编辑工作中培养作者,以提高其写作能力,使高校学报作者群稳定、持续地发展.     

泛在知识环境中科技期刊的发展方向

作为未来知识型社会的一种全面的数字化信息基础设施,泛在知识环境对于我们未来的学术交流模式以及作为学术交流重要环节的科技期刊出版将产生深远的影响。首先讨论泛在知识环境中信息环境、科技出版模式和用户信息需求方式等学术交流模式所发生的变化。在此基础上,分析泛在知识环境对科技期刊出版的核心竞争力和业务生长点等多方面所带来的挑战。针对这些挑战,指出我国未来科技期刊出版的发展方向:实现全方位的数字化出版流程;与用户共同建设一个网络知识社区;提供基于全文的知识服务;积极参与知识创新链的管理。     

临床医学期刊在健康科普中的作用

随着泛在网络时代的到来,新媒体已成为人们获取健康知识的首要途径;但当前网络健康知识来源芜杂,各种夸大甚至歪曲医学事实的报道层出不穷,健康科普的“含金量”亟须提高。临床医学期刊是权威医学成果发布和交流的重要平台,拥有由作者、审者和编者等众多优秀医学专业工作者组成的专家团队,具有天然的健康科普优势和媒体属性。《协和医学杂志》通过将医学论文科普化、捕捉新闻热点、培养科普人才、充分利用新媒体平台等途径,证明临床医学期刊有责任更有能力在健康科普中发挥重要作用。     

Where Arab social science and humanities scholars choose to publish: Falling in the predatory journals trap

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.     

英文期刊文后参考文献著录的几点建议

为了使中国出版的英文期刊的文后参考文献著录格式更好地适应世界各地英语读者的需要,以GB／T7714-2005《文后参考文献著录规则》为基础,结合ISO690：1987、ISO690—2：1997、国际上广泛采用的温哥华统一格式以及国外英文期刊文后参考文献著录格式的变化趋势,对著者姓氏、文献类型标志、联机文献引用日期和更新日期等著录项目以及中文文献的著录方式提出了变通的建议。