共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
2.
Frank‐Thorsten KRELL 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(1):59-62
The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal. 相似文献
3.
Selcuk Besir Demir 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1296-1311
This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated where predatory/fake journals (PFJs) are founded, which countries’ researchers publish more frequently in PFJs, the identity of the editors of PFJs, why researchers publish in PFJs, and what factors encourage such publications. A survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews were used to collect data. The results indicate that the majority of PFJs are located in developing countries; 119 journals provided incorrect postal addresses; the greatest number of researchers who published in PFJs are from India, Nigeria, and Turkey, suggesting that most of the publications in PFJs are submitted by researchers in developing countries; the interviewed Turkish researchers submitted their articles to PFJs in pursuit of rapid academic promotion; the incentive allowance system encourages researchers to publish in PFJs; and the well-known “publish-or-perish” pressure and unawareness are other potential factors that drive participants to submit their papers to PFJs. 相似文献
4.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
5.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE Carol TENOPIR Eti HERMAN 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(2):121-134
The paper provides the results of the first phase of the research project Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition. It provides for an examination of the behaviours and attitudes of academic researchers as producers and consumers of scholarly information resources in the digital era in respect to how they determine authority and trustworthiness in the sources they use, cite, and publish in. The first phase of the study utilized focus groups to formulate research questions for the project as a whole. It provided the direction for the literature review, interviews, and questionnaires studies that would follow. Fourteen focus groups were held in the UK and US in order to obtain this information. A total of 66 science and social science researchers participated. The main findings were: (a) researchers play down difficulties of establishing trustworthiness, not because there are none, but because they have well‐developed methods of establishing trust; (b) citation‐derived metrics are becoming more important in regard to where researchers publish; (c) social media are ancillary to research, but are used for promotion of research and idea generation; (d) researchers are suspicious and confused about open access, but less so if produced by a traditional publisher; (e) there was a uniformity of perceptions/behaviour of researchers irrespective of differences in subject, country, and age; (f) although some early career researchers behave the same as their more senior colleagues this is because of a fear of the system: they actually think differently. 相似文献
6.
7.
This article reports on a large‐scale international survey of authors' perception and experience of the journals system conducted by ciber in association with National Opinion Polls (NOP). It explores the factors that inform authors' decisions where to publish and, in particular, which groups of readers they perceive to be most important. It probes readership behaviour and the values that underlie authors' attitudes towards copyright and emerging business models, notably open access. It is concluded that many aspects of author behaviour are highly conservative and that a significant shift towards open access is, in the short to medium term, highly unlikely. 相似文献
8.
Using the theory of planned behavior as a theoretical framework, survey data from 121 authors in the professional field of school librarianship (40% of whom were practitioners) were used to identify beliefs about publishing in the field, attitudes to research and publication, perceived social norms and social influences on research and publication, and perceived barriers to research and publication. The journals in which the authors prefer to publish and their reasons for journal choice are also reported. This is the first reported study to specifically address reasons for publication choice in a professional field, and it indicates that relevance to practice is an important consideration, in addition to scholarly rigor, when authors in professional fields consider where to publish their research. The views and motivations of full professors, other researchers and practitioner-authors were surprisingly similar, although practitioners—who had less research preparation than researchers—were less confident about their ability to conduct and write-up research. Additionally, researchers other than full professors, and practitioners, reported that the encouragements of peers and supervisors or senior colleagues were important social influences for research and publication. 相似文献
9.
10.
作者自校环节虽小,却有着不可忽视的重要作用.科技期刊应重视作者自校环节,通过不断改进方式、方法,实现作者与编辑、期刊之间的良性互动. 相似文献
11.
Verity Warne 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):41-50
In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers. 相似文献
12.
加强作者相关信息审查 预防学术造假发生——1起来稿涉嫌学术造假给我们的启示 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
从《中国职业医学》杂志1起来稿涉嫌学术造假案例分析中得出启示:科技期刊应加强作者信息审查,采取新、旧媒体结合的方式对学术造假进行曝光与警示,与作者单位人事部门联网,在ORCID中建立学术诚信档案,由其人事部门对学术造假给予相应的处分,从源头上遏制造假行为. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
目前,国内期刊社关于论文作者稿酬的支付没有统一的标准,有的期刊社不支付稿酬,有的期刊社稿酬支付仍然沿用1999年发布的《出版文字作品报酬规定》,还有些期刊社采取优稿优酬制度,导致作者意见较多。为了更加公平合理地给期刊论文作者支付稿酬,建议国内期刊社可采用基本稿酬+被引频次支付部分稿酬的办法,并就其依据、实施方法、统计被引频次时间范围、不同期刊引用区别对待及其应用的可行性进行分析总结。 相似文献
16.
Kanwal Ameen 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):133-142
This paper aims to investigate the practices of Pakistani academic researchers with respect to using, citing, and publishing their scholarly work. The quantitative survey method adopted to collect data from local researchers was based on an instrument developed and used by CIBER. Their notions and practices involved in deciding trust and quality of scholarly journals were obtained. The findings revealed that national and institutional policies have significantly influenced their decisions regarding the publishing outlets. The credibility of indexing services was found to be an important factor in choosing the journal for publishing research. ISI Web of Science Impact Factor was not considered as the top source for determining quality and trustworthiness. This study is the first of its kind that targets the top two universities of the country. A comparison of the findings with another international study shows that some of the behavioural traits are compatible with scholars from less‐developed countries like India and China, while others are more similar to the ones from highly developed countries like USA and UK. 相似文献
17.
[目的/意义]近年来全球范围内的科研人员流动越来越频繁,对流入国和流出国均产生较大影响。本文旨在分析全球范围内科研人员流动的模式及其影响因素。[研究设计/方法]以ORCID数据集中全球范围内的35.7万有博士学位的学者的简历(含教育背景和任职经历等)作为数据来源,从生源国、博士培养国、就业国三个层面,将学者的流动模式分为五类:A-A-A、A-A-B、A-B-B、A-B-A、A-B-C(A、B、C指不同的国家),采用多分类无序逻辑回归模型等研究方法,探讨五种流动模式的影响因素。[结论/发现]①跨国流动的科研人员占少数(近四成);②来自发达国家的科研人员中,发文量突出者或高水平论文数量突出者更倾向于跨国就业;③来自发展中国家的科研人员中,发文量虽不突出但高水平论文数量较多者更倾向于留在获取博士学位的国家就业。[创新/价值]用ORCID数据集追踪全球科研人员流动的方法具有新颖性,对科研人员流动模式及其影响因素的分析可以为我国人才发展战略提供借鉴。 相似文献
18.
科技期刊编辑与作者沟通的效果决定了稿件的下一环节是否顺利以及作者对期刊的好感度.在与作者沟通的前后,如果可以在主观上有意识地去了解作者,分析作者的准备度类型,并因人制宜地换位思考,将有助于沟通效率的提高及日常编辑工作的正常化. 相似文献
19.
20.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined. 相似文献