当前位置:首页 >期刊论文 >《最新论文》>正文

教你如何识别“掠夺性”期刊 | BMC Medicine

 2018/11/5 9:40:19 《最新论文》 作者:BMC Medicine 我有话说(0人评论) 字体大小:+

论文标题:Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

期刊:BMC Medicine

作者:Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Onyi Maduekwe, Lucy Turner, Virginia Barbour, Rebecca Burch, Jocalyn Clark, James Galipeau, Jason Roberts and Beverley J. Shea

发表时间:2018/03/16

数字识别码:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

原文链接:https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9?utm_source=WeChat&utm_medium=Website_linksSocial_media_organic&utm_content=CelZha-MixedBrand-multijournal-Multidisciplinary-China&utm_campaign=ORG_AWA_CZH_BMCWechat_dailyposts_blogs

微信链接:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xt6Z4JreFTq4bgvrBSvyew

一篇在BMC Medicine中发表的新研究旨在确定潜在“掠夺性”期刊的特征:收取出版费而不提供编辑服务或正规同行评审的在线期刊。该研究的两位作者David Moher和Larissa Shamseer在此向我们介绍了他们的工作及其如何能够帮助作者。

黑名单

犯罪故事通常被描绘为善与恶之间的斗争。发表生物医学研究也类似于此。几年前(现已停止)“学术开放获取(Scholarly Open Access)”网站列出了被视为劣质的期刊和出版商,即一份“黑名单”。

为了得到黑名单,其筛选整理人员Jeffrey Beall采用了来自出版道德委员会(Committee on Publication Ethics)和开放获取学术出版商协会(Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association)的许多标准,诸如期刊网站上能够很容易辨识的综合作者指南。如果他认为期刊和/或出版商不符合这些标准,则将其添加到他的列表中。他创造了“掠夺性”期刊和出版商这一术语用来描述这些实体。

我们倾向将他们描述为非法实体(即未经法律许可和/或不符合公认标准或规章);我们有意避免使用主题词“期刊”。这是一个刺耳但我们认为又有必要的术语,因为根据我们今天发表于BMC Medicine的研究结果,他们的运作似乎与合法可信的期刊所遵循的标准完全背离。

这些非法实体宣称自己遵循最佳实践出版标准。但是他们似乎规避了一切科学要求,从执行同行评审到内容的数字化在线回溯(Medline索引期刊要求)。

掠夺性邀请

尽管黑名单具有若干限制,包括用来辨识期刊的非循证标准的不一致和单方面应用,但其深受欢迎且原因不言而喻。其满足了需求。科学界人士的电子邮件收件箱中开始出现越来越多的邀请。这些邀请似乎来自期刊编辑,基本上是在称赞收件人的聪明才智,以及对期刊学科做出了卓越贡献,并邀请他们向所述实体提交稿件。来信通常表示所述实体具有较高的影响因子,并将提供快速且深入的同行评审。

已成立的合法期刊通常不会通过电子邮件邀稿,并且根据我们最近的发现,这些期刊几乎从不承诺快速发表。困境在于是否以及如何回应这类电子邮件邀请。在“不发表就死亡”文化盛行的学术界,与生物医学出版领域较低甚至极低发表接受率的激烈竞争相比,这种邀请似乎是一项不那么艰巨的任务,且具有更高的发表可能性。

尽管通常情况下驱动因素是得到发表而丰富个人简历,但底线应该是,令研究得以发表,使得包括患者在内的其他人能够阅读从而做出明智决定。如果感兴趣,潜在作者可以访问“学术开放获取”网站,查看关注期刊是否名列在内。尽管该站点不再运行,但可以通过网络档案馆—网页时光机,查看其缓存内容。

其他倡导也已出现,包括“思考、检查、提交”活动,其中包含一系列考虑因素,供潜在作者在选择要提交的期刊时进行考量和筛查。该活动得到了各大生物医药出版商的广泛支持,并鼓励作者检查期刊是否加入行业公认倡导,包括开放获取期刊是否通过开放获取期刊目录(Directory of Open Access Journals),“白名单”,的审查。

我们时常考虑黑名单、白名单上的期刊,以及它们如何相互并与传统订阅期刊进行比较(传统订阅期刊中许多现在已具有开放获取选项)。我与几位同事通力合作,比较了93个(来自学术开放获取列表的)非法实体、99个(来自PubMed Central的)合法开放获取期刊和100个(来自医学索引节略本的)订阅基础期刊之间的多个期刊级别特征。

开放获取、订阅和非法期刊的差别

今天,我们在BMC Medicine中报道了我们的结果,并列出了可供作者在审查期刊网站合法性时查找的“危险信号”的循证列表。我们认为这篇文章提供了丰富的信息,并希望您也会认可其的有效性和实用性。底线在于,假定的合法期刊和非法期刊之间存在若干重要差别。

潜在掠夺性期刊的明显特征

1. 感兴趣的范围包括非生物医学学科与生物医学主题

2. 网站包含拼写和语法错误

3. 图像失真/模糊不清,意在表示并非其本身含义的内容或未授权的内容

4. 主页语言针对作者

5. 网站上宣传哥白尼索引值

6. 缺乏稿件处理过程描述

7. 要求通过电子邮件提交稿件

8. 承诺快速发表

9. 没有撤回政策

10. 缺少是否以及如何对期刊内容进行数字化保存的信息

11. 文章处理/出版费用非常低(例如,少于150美金)

12. 期刊宣称开放获取,保留对已发表研究的版权或没有提及版权

13. 联系电子邮箱地址是非专业和非期刊附属邮箱(例如,@gmail.com或@yahoo.com)

存疑掠夺性期刊的循证、明显特征列表

非法实体的网站看上去不专业(模糊不清和/或具有去除的图像),宣传虚假的影响因子,缺乏成熟的道德政策、注册和报告指南等报告标准以及与科学出版最佳实践相关的其他活动。

与合法的开放获取期刊(中位数为$USD1865)以及订阅混合期刊(中位数为$USD3000)相比,非法实体的作者处理费用十分低廉(中位数为$USD100)。

尽管在这些实体中发表的论文通常无法在Medline等传统的生物医学数据库上获得索引,但可以通过一些诸如Google Scholar之类的搜索引擎对其进行检索。如果研究由具有某些开放获取政策的组织资助,那么这些论文可被上传到PubMed Central。来自这些实体的论文正向合法的科学文献渗透,并被纳入用于经费申请、晋升和任期档案的简历中,而很可能未被评估者察觉。

生物体由于缺氧而死亡。对于这些非法实体我们需要采取类似的做法。如果从稿件来源阶段就将其切断,这些非法实体将不复存在。汉斯•克里斯蒂安•安徒生的故事《皇帝的新装》是对拥护谎言的警示。对于出版界内冒充“皇帝”的非法实体同样适用。

摘要:

Background

The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.

Methods

On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.

Results

Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000).

Conclusions

We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.

阅读论文全文请访问:

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9?utm_source=WeChat&utm_medium=Website_linksSocial_media_organic&utm_content=CelZha-MixedBrand-multijournal-Multidisciplinary-China&utm_campaign=ORG_AWA_CZH_BMCWechat_dailyposts_blogs

期刊介绍:

BMC Medicine(https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/, 9.088 - 2-year Impact Factor, 9.41 - 5-year Impact Factor) is the flagship medical journal of the BMC series. An open access, open peer-reviewed general medical journal, BMC Medicine publishes outstanding and influential research in all areas of clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. We also publish stimulating debates and reviews as well as unique forum articles and concise tutorials.

来源:BMC Medicine