共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva Judit Dobránszki Panagiotis Tsigaris Aceil Al-Khatib 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(6):102071
The issue of “predatory” publishing continues to affect many scholars around the world who publish. When one reads the fairly vast literature surrounding “predatory” publishing, there is an erroneous tendency to continue pivoting around Jeffrey Beall's blacklists of “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers. However, to be “predatory” involves much more than defining a handful of select behaviours, and it is becoming increasingly important to start defining, or curtailing, the lexicon to avoid referring to any journal or publisher that might display one of the following qualities (exploitative, deceptive, excessive, unscrupulous, abusive, advantageous, manipulative, profit-seeking, or others) as synonymously meaning “predatory”. This paper focuses mainly on the oft-interchangeable terms “predatory” and “exploitation”, and explores the morality of predatory and exploitative actions by applying a deontological ethics approach which implies that certain actions are wrong even if they achieve good consequences, with the understanding that because a predatory entity aims to exploit others, these actions would be considered morally wrong from a deontologist's perspective. In articulating our argument, we attempt to expand the conversation around this important topic, with the hope that it might bring additional clarity to the issue of what might constitute a “predatory” journal or publisher. 相似文献
2.
3.
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
4.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(5):102187
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
5.
中国原创图画书开始走向世界,但中国图画书的历史可能比西方更早。图画书本质上是一种出版现象,在中西方不同文化背景中有不同的呈现方式。中西方图画书同源于儿童读物的插图,随着出版科技的进步和读图时代的到来,从“出版热”逐渐形成“文学热”,从“文字的儿童读物”演化为“图画书的儿童文学”,在新世纪交流融合中发展为儿童文学的典型样式——绘本。中国原创图画书的复兴有其深刻的历史文化背景和深厚的民族文学传统,建设中国特色的图画书评价标准和理论体系应该提上议事日程。 相似文献
6.
随着全媒体时代的来临,媒介融合已成为不可阻挡的趋势。文学出版产业顺应时代潮流,逐渐展现出明晰的发展逻辑,即传统文学出版与网络文学出版的并行,两者共同发展、相互促进,体现出基于“存量经济”与“增量经济”两种出版形态的共存状态。论文从全媒体时代的环境变化入手,分析、总结传统文学出版与网络文学出版在新的时代背景下截然不同的发展逻辑,通过对两者辩证地剖析,以展望未来两者共同繁荣的光明图景。 相似文献
7.
“众筹”概念诞生于十年前,目前在中国已被学界和业界熟知,并已进入官方话语体系。但是“众筹”和出版相结合的运作方式仍属新鲜事物,仍需在理论上和实践中探索。本文从迈克尔?波特提出的产业价值链的视角出发,运用知乎网的“众筹”出版行为、乐嘉的众筹图书营销等多案例分析的方法,尝试说明“众筹”出版模式如何将产业价值链改造为产业价值网,如何改变终端产品形态,以及如何重塑读者的角色和作用。还提出出版众筹遇到的阻力和发展瓶颈,包括“众筹”平台自身的原因,以及出版机构中体制和思路的限制。 相似文献
8.
传统出版和新兴出版融合发展上升为国家出版战略,研究融合发展模式是为全面深化中国出版改革探寻改革路径,重点探析中国出版融合发展的三种模式：全媒体融合范型、融合出版范型、关系出版范型,以期从技术视角探讨融合发展的改革路径。 相似文献
9.
While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model. 相似文献
10.
Greening the German book industry is a large-scale task. This article, based in part on the results of a one-day conference titled “Bio im Bücherregal?” (Engl. translation: “Eco-friendly products on the bookshelf?”) that was held in Mainz in January 2013, considers different perspectives on green publishing in Germany and presents the status quo as well as an outlook. After a brief historical and theoretical overview on the media and the environmental movement, the article presents current developments such as the initiative “Nachhaltig Publizieren” (“Green Publishing”). Initiated in 2011 by the publisher Oekom, the project has become a catalyst for the green publishing movement in Germany. In addition, this contribution introduces publishers and imprints, in particular of children’s books, that strive to fulfill the highest possible criteria for green publishing in certain project areas. Finally, the close connection between green publishing and green content is discussed. 相似文献
11.
Nicole Benevento Albert N. Greco Toniann Pasqueralle Clara Rodriguez Francesca Russo Alana M. Spendley Kelly Sullivan Yiming Sun Robert M. Wharton 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2017,33(4):357-372
The “gender gap” in the U.S. publication of English language and literature scholarly books has not been fully investigated. In order to investigate gender disparity, we collected, aggregated, and analyzed data on 1633 faculty members who authored or edited 4835 scholarly books at the top 50 U.S. English Ph.D. departments. Despite the fact that more women than men have received Ph.D.s in English since 1987, the top 50 departments are predominantly male, and male faculty members publish more books on a per capita basis. However, who publishes more books in these departments varies: (1) with the department that the faculty member is in (with grater parity in the middle 30 departments); and (2) when the faculty member published their first book, with female faculty who published their first book after 1998 publishing as many books on a per person basis as male faculty. This paper also offers recommendations on how marketing strategies can be used to ameliorate the “gender gap” in this academic field. 相似文献
12.
首先从历史角度考察纸质出版,认为就具体形态而言是以纸为媒介“镌著于版”“印行于世”的行为,其本质是“信息生产与传播”行为。其次指出互联网时代,纸质出版的价值犹在,但基于数据的生产与传播为大势所趋：数据库是面向特定主题,集成的、相对稳定的、具有统一格式的、能反映历史变化的数据集合,数据库建设是将“孤立、静态和碎片化”的文本数据转化为“关联、动态和整体性”的结构化数据工程。最后,以自然灾害类突发事件中的旱灾数据库建设为例,探讨数据库建设的意义,介绍数据库建设的基本步骤,以期为出版业的转型提供新思路。 相似文献
13.
Peter Binfield 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1-2):37-42
Rolnik's preconference went well beyond the “business of publishing from a very basic perspective” as described in the conference program. Rolnik's preconference described the publishing market, operations within publishing companies, and how publishers find content. Dr. Peter Binfield, a guest speaker with expertise in society publishing, complemented the preconference. 相似文献
14.
《Library & information science research》2006,28(2):208-234
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the concept of book self-publishing for fiction and nonfiction began to loom large in the North American publishing universe. As traditional mainstream publishers consolidated and were often loathe to take chances on unknown writers whose books might not turn immediate profits, some authors found that fewer and fewer publishing venues were open to them. As a result, new self-publishers—collectively called “author services” or print-on-demand (POD) publishers—appeared alongside subsidy (or vanity) publishers. Against the background of an increasing corporatization of mainstream publishing, book self-publishing can theoretically be situated as one of the last bastions of independent publishing. This article examines how academic and public libraries dealt with the book self-publishing phenomena during 1960–2004. To what extent did libraries collect fiction and nonfiction published by self-publishing houses? Can any patterns be discerned in their collecting choices? Did libraries choose to collect more titles from “author services” publishers than subsidy publishers? 相似文献
15.
Péter Vinkler 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(2):254-264
The effect of two different calculation methods for obtaining relative impact indicators is modelled. Science policy considerations make it clear that evaluating the sets of publications, the “ratio of the sums” method should be preferred over the “mean of the ratios” method. Accordingly, determining the relative total impact against the mean relative impact of the publications of teams or institutes may be preferred. The special problem caused by relating the number of citations of an individual article to the Garfield (Impact) Factor (or mean citedness) of the publishing journal (or a set of journals selected as standard) lower than zero is demonstrated by examples. The possible effects of the different share of publications in different fields on the value of the “new crown” index are also modelled. The assessment methods using several appropriately weighted indicators which result in a composite index are recommended. The acronym “BMV” is suggested to term the relative impact indicators (e.g. RCR, CPP/JCSm, CPP/FCSm and RW) in scientometrics. 相似文献
16.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(1):102659
Cabell Publishing Co. (herein Cabells), a private Texas-based US company, filled a void left after the shutdown of Jeffrey Beall's blacklists or watchlists that categorized open access “predatory publishing”. In addition to a journal whitelist or safelist product, Journalytics, Cabells markets a product (Predatory Reports) for post-secondary institutions that lists journals' infractions and poor practices, and thus acts as a warning system for academics to determine if they might be dealing with a scholarly entity, or not. Predatory Reports consists of three levels of criteria, or “infractions” (severe, moderate, and minor), that correspond to eight categories. In this paper, we critically examined the Predatory Reports' 74 criteria to determine which of them are clear and useful, and which might be ambiguous or not entirely meaningful. We identified seven criteria that could be accepted as they are, 28 criteria that required clarification and revision, and 39 criteria that we believe should be eliminated. Our expectation is that once this and additional publishing-related criteria have been fully and carefully assessed, validated and parsed, that a community-based set of criteria will eventually become established to better guide academics about safe or risky publishing venues. 相似文献
17.
Robert J. Robbins 《Publishing Research Quarterly》1994,10(1):3-27
Biology is entering a new era in which data are being generated that cannot be published in the traditional literature. Databases are taking the role of scientific literature in distributing this information to the community. The success of some major biological undertakings, such as the Human Genome Project, will depend upon the development of a system for electronic data publishing. Many biological databases began as secondary literature—reviews in which certain kinds of data were collected from the primary literature. Now these databases are becoming a new kind of primary literature with findings being submitted directly to the database and never being published in print form. Some databases are offering publishing on demand services, where users can identify subsets of the data that are of interest, then subscribe to periodic distributions of the requested data. New systems, such as fordable while offering a powerful search tool to the scientific community. Although many questions remain regarding the ultimate interactions between electronic and traditional data publishing and about their respective roles in the scientific process, electronic data publishing is here now, changing the way biology is done. The technical problems associated with mounting cost-effective electronic data publishing are either solved, or solutions seem in reach. What is needed now, to take us all the way into electronic data publishing as a new, formal literature, is the development of more high-quality, professionally operated EDP sites. The key to transforming these into a new scientific literature is the establishment of appropriate editorial and review policies for electronic data publishing sites. Editors have the opportunity and the responsibility to work in the vanguard of a revolution in scientific publishing. 相似文献
18.
19.
20.
ABSTRACT The “difficult” requests submitted by the research library users prove document delivery vendors could hardly replace interlibrary loan librarians. “Difficult” requests ask for the “grey literature” not traded commercially and not kept in libraries. They require the special attention and professional knowledge of the interlibrary loan librarian. Besides usual bibliographic and reference tools, the Internet, e-mail, and the search engines have to be employed to solve them. The help of those responsible for the production of the literature in question is significant. In tackling “difficult” requests, interlibrary loan librarians may further add value to their services by facilitating sharing between scholars or researchers. Five actual cases are presented to illustrate how the “difficult” requests were tackled and solved. 相似文献