共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 390 毫秒
1.
Mohammad Salehi Mohammad Soltani Hadis Tamleh Shohreh Teimournezhad 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):89-95
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
2.
The paper presents the results of an international questionnaire survey of the attitudes of senior authors towards scholarly publishing. It was commissioned by the Publishers Association (PA) and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). A total of 5,513 authors participated. The questionnaire included 22 closed questions and one open‐ended question that 1,943 authors used to freely express their views. Using QSR N6 textual analysis software, their comments were processed and themes extracted. The main concerns of the authors were the peer‐review process, faster publishing, better access to journals, journal prices, and issues related to electronic publishing. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
This study examines aspects of scholarly journal publishing in the Nordic countries. On average half of Nordic journals publish online. In most Nordic countries, commercial publishers predominate; however, in Finland the majority are society publishers. The number of open access journals is low, in line with international figures. There is concern to maintain local languages in journal publishing. A majority of the journals publishing in local languages are within social science, humanities, and arts; the STM sector publishes in English. English‐language publications are favoured in research assessments, international recognition, and impact, while the visibility of local‐language scholarly journals in international databases is low. The Nordbib program supports Nordic scholarly journals and fosters co‐operation with publishing companies and learned societies over migration to e‐publishing; it also supports open access. The article discusses future challenges for journal publishing, pointing out the problems of small journal publishers and the need for co‐operation between stakeholders. 相似文献
5.
The individual members of 35 UK learned societies were surveyed on their attitudes to open access (OA); 1,368 responses were received. Most respondents said they knew what OA was, and supported the idea of OA journals. However, although 60% said that they read OA journals and 25% that they published in them, in both cases around one‐third of the journals named were not OA. While many were in favour of increased access through OA journals, concerns were expressed about the cost to authors, possible reduction in quality, and negative impact on existing journals, publishers, and societies. By contrast, less than half knew what self‐archiving was; 36% thought it was a good idea and 50% were unsure. Just under half said they used repositories of self‐archived articles, but 13% of references were not in fact to self‐archiving repositories. 29% said they self‐archived their own articles, but 10% of references were not to publicly accessible sites of any kind. The access and convenience of self‐archiving repositories were seen as positive, but there were concerns about quality control, workload for authors and institutions, chaotic proliferation of versions, and potential damage to existing journals, publishers, and societies. 相似文献
6.
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
7.
Academic libraries should be considered research tools, co‐evolving with technology. The Internet has changed the way science is communicated and hence also the role of libraries. It has made it possible for researchers to provide open access (OA) (i.e. toll‐free, full‐text, online access, web‐wide) to their peer‐reviewed journal articles in two different ways: (i) by publishing in them in OA journals, and (ii) by publishing them in non‐OA journals but also self‐archiving them in their institutional OA archives. Librarians are researchers' best allies in both of these strategies. Examples of these strategies are described. We conclude that an official mandate for OA provision is necessary to accelerate its growth and thereby the growth of research usage and impact worldwide. 相似文献
8.
Jonathan J. Mallett 《Learned Publishing》2021,34(1):49-56
- Scientific publication has been a key part of the scientific method since the inception of Philosophical Transactions in 1665.
- The scientific publications industry has grown exponentially along with science, incorporating technological innovations along the way, and adapting journal processes and practices to changing needs of science as it matured.
- Of all the technological innovations over more than 300 years, the move to online journals may be the most significant, making open access to content practical for the first time.
- The open‐access movement is disrupting the economics of journal publishing, which is hoped will make the industry more competitive: the ability of the publications industry to adapt to open access will be a measure of its resilience.
- The demand for articles published in reputable journals continues to grow as readers trust the credibility of peer reviewed journal articles, and good authors value the prestige of publishing in the best journals.
- It is difficult to predict what new functionalities may be included in articles of the future or what additional services publishers and editors will provide, but there is every reason to believe that scientific journal articles are here to stay.
9.
Metrics on open access (OA) availability of content published in scholarly journals (i.e. content licences, copyright ownership, and publisher‐stipulated self‐archiving permissions) are still scarce. This study implements the four core variables of the recently published Open Access Spectrum (OAS) (reader rights, reuse rights, copyright, and author posting rights) to measure the level of openness in all 1,728 Spanish scholarly journals listed in the Spanish national DULCINEA database at the end of 2015. Data exported from the database and used as variables for the analysis were: journal research area, type of publisher, type of access, self‐archiving and reuse policy, and type of Creative Commons (CC) licence used. Out of the total number of journals (1,728), 1,285 (74.5%) published their articles OA immediately after initial publication and thus received the maximum OAS score for reader rights; 37.5% of all journals used CC licences, and 79.5% allowed self‐archiving in some form. In 72% of journals, authors retained or publishers granted broad rights, which included author reuse and authorization rights (for others to reuse), whilst 13.5% did not specify any terms for copyright transfer. Similar studies could be carried out on other countries as this would enable comparisons of the general adoption and form of openness in different parts of the world. 相似文献
10.
11.
在开放存取蓬勃发展和高校图书馆馆藏电子化的大趋势下,高校图书馆的文献保障工作如何适应新的趋势,需要深入研究。本文以武汉大学2013年被SCIE、SSCI和A&HCI所收录文章的期刊类参考文献为研究样本,采用一种针对期刊类参考文献的以年为单位的引文检查方法,匹配世界主要开放存取期刊目录以及武汉大学图书馆馆藏电子和印本期刊目录,研究当前这三类期刊对样本参考文献及来源期刊的收藏和缺藏情况。以此探讨三类期刊在高校图书馆文献资源保障中的特征与趋势,以及开放存取期刊对馆藏资源建设的影响,为高校图书馆进一步优化期刊馆藏体系和提高文献保障率提供科学依据。 相似文献
12.
Kristin Antelman 《Learned Publishing》2006,19(2):85-95
Authors in different disciplines exhibit very different behaviours on the so‐called ‘green’ road to open access, i.e. self‐archiving. This study looks at the self‐archiving behaviour of authors publishing in leading journals in six social science disciplines. It tests the hypothesis that authors are self‐archiving according to the norms of their respective disciplines rather than following self‐archiving policies of publishers, and that, as a result, they are self‐archiving significant numbers of publisher PDF versions. It finds significant levels of self‐archiving, as well as significant self‐archiving of the publisher PDF version, in all the disciplines investigated. Publishers' self‐archiving policies have no influence on author self‐archiving practice. 相似文献
13.
David Nicholas Hamid R. Jamali M. Paul Huntington Ian Rowlands 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(3):212-220
This paper presents the results of a major investigation by questionnaire of author attitudes towards scholarly publishing, which was funded by the Publisher's Association. Altogether, the views of nearly 4,000 authors were obtained and this paper concerns just those thousand or so authors who accepted the invitation to write freely about their own personal feelings and experiences. Using QSR N6 textual analysis software, their comments were processed and themes extracted. While the rest of the questionnaire, which was formed of closed‐question, tick‐box type questions, clearly must have had some impact on their thinking, the authors had considerable latitude in regard to what they could say. The paper provides a unique opportunity to hear their views directly. The pressing topics turned out to be (in rough order of concern): the peer‐review system, copyright, journal prices, alternative business models for journal publishing, big deals, Elsevier, electronic publishing and digital journals. 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.
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
16.
17.
18.
Jingfeng XIA 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):69-74
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
19.