<p>In this editorial, I will attempt to capture some thoughts for reflection and discussion on the science publication process, as it currently presents to researchers. Publication—communication of findings—is both a natural sequel to and an integral part of research, and critical to researchers' career development. Unfortunately, while there are many positives, there are also some significant emerging issues needing to be resolved in today's science publication sector. From a philosophical perspective, the aim of the publishing process should be to distill and communicate the key new information generated by a research project. Publication has an archival function (creating a record of what was done), a networking function (allowing researchers in the same field to learn from and build on each other's findings), and a knowledge building function (contributing to the sum of human knowledge).</p><p>A bogey word often raised in recent years is ‘paper mill’, defined as the fraudulent creation of superficially normal manuscripts for sale to authors who are prepared to use such tactics to enhance their CVs and advance their careers. A recent analysis in Nature (Van Noorden, <span>2023</span>) indicated that 3% of all articles published in medicine and biology in the last two decades are likely to be paper mill products. A second current concern is ‘predatory publishing’ defined as the collection of publication fees without the normal quality and integrity controls associated with scientific publication.</p><p>The scientific publication sector is large, and researchers often don't appreciate just how large. Among the well-known Scientific publishers, Springer have 3000+, Taylor and Frances 2700+, Elsevier 2600+ and Wiley 1600+ journal titles, according to publishers' own websites. MDPI, regarded by some but not by the writer as a predatory publisher has 473 journal titles. In their 2023 Annual Report, MDPI indicate 655 000 papers submitted and 285 244 published in that year, with 1.4 million peer review reports received. Internet sources indicate over 5 million scientific papers per year published currently with 744 000 papers from China and 624 000 from the United States in journals listed by Scopus in 2020. Considering that a typical article processing charge for open access publication is in the range of $US 2000–3500 and journals using a subscription model presumably have a similar revenue, it is immediately clear that the total financial turnover associated with the global scientific publishing sector is similar to the GDP of a medium sized country, such as Australia.</p><p>The scientific publication sector has also grown and evolved dramatically over the last 50 years. A Clarivate Web of Science search by the writer for papers with the topic ‘grassland’ returned 423 articles in the period 1971–1975, 11 459 articles in the period 1996–2000, and 37 939 articles in the last 5 years. Corresponding numbers for papers from China were 0, 192 and 14 056.
在这篇社论中,我将试图捕捉一些关于科学出版过程的思考和讨论,因为它目前呈现给研究人员。发表——研究成果的传播——既是研究的自然结果,也是研究不可分割的一部分,对研究人员的职业发展至关重要。不幸的是,虽然有许多积极的方面,但在今天的科学出版部门也有一些重要的新问题需要解决。从哲学的角度来看,出版过程的目的应该是提炼和交流研究项目产生的关键新信息。出版物具有存档功能(创建已完成工作的记录),网络功能(允许同一领域的研究人员从彼此的发现中学习和构建)以及知识构建功能(为人类知识的总和做出贡献)。近年来经常出现的一个令人厌恶的词是“造纸厂”,它被定义为伪造表面上正常的手稿,然后卖给那些准备利用这种策略来提升自己的简历和事业发展的作者。《自然》杂志最近的一项分析(Van Noorden, 2023)表明,在过去二十年中,发表在医学和生物学领域的所有文章中,有3%可能是造纸厂的产品。目前的第二个问题是“掠夺性出版”,它被定义为在没有与科学出版相关的正常质量和诚信控制的情况下收取出版费用。科学出版行业规模庞大,而研究人员往往没有意识到它的规模有多大。在著名的科学出版商中,根据出版商自己的网站,施普林格有3000+,Taylor and Frances 2700+, Elsevier 2600+和Wiley 1600+期刊。MDPI被一些人认为是掠夺性的出版商,但笔者并不这么认为,它拥有473种期刊。MDPI在其2023年年度报告中指出,该年提交了65.5万篇论文,发表了285 244篇论文,收到了140万份同行评议报告。互联网资料显示,到2020年,Scopus列出的期刊每年发表的科学论文超过500万篇,其中中国论文74.4万篇,美国论文62.4万篇。考虑到开放获取出版物的典型文章处理费在2000-3500美元之间,使用订阅模式的期刊大概也有类似的收入,很明显,与全球科学出版部门相关的总财务营业额与澳大利亚等中等国家的GDP相当。在过去的50年里,科学出版部门也得到了巨大的发展和演变。作者在Clarivate Web of Science上搜索以“草原”为主题的论文,得到了1971-1975年期间的423篇文章,1996-2000年期间的11459篇文章,以及过去5年的37939篇文章。中国论文数量分别为0、192和14 056篇。在同一时期,典型的期刊所有权结构也发生了变化。在20世纪70年代,期刊由政府部门或科学学会所有是很常见的。现在,大多数图书都归商业出版社所有,或者至少是由它们管理。例如,《新西兰农业研究杂志》以前由新西兰政府科学和工业研究部出版,现在由泰勒和弗朗西斯出版;由协会办公室出版的《英国草地协会杂志》更名为《草与饲料科学》,随后由威利出版。如果我们简单地把这个行业看作是由出版商、作者和利益相关者(如大学、资助机构和政府科学管理人员)组成的,我们就可以开始从逻辑上推断出一些积极的结果和负面的压力。出版商将有强烈的动机增加收入,这可能来自增加收费,或整合和合理化运营,并在可能的情况下减少服务以降低成本。他们还将关注在行业内获得声望,并获得与他们合作出版的作者的认可,以保持市场份额。这通常需要认真遵守诚信原则,并考虑到诸如健全的同行评议和缩短出版时间。作者最感兴趣的是他们的作品在同行和同事中的读者群和地位,以及像快速出版这样的考虑。同行审稿人对他们工作的理解程度以及反馈是否具有建设性也很重要。利益相关者通常有兴趣衡量研究人员的就业或晋升决策的产出。这意味着像影响因子这样的发行商指标可能会对作者的行为产生不成比例的影响。 从笔者作为《草原研究》编辑的角度来看,上述出版业的演变既有积极的一面,也有消极的一面。从积极的方面来看,过去等待几个月甚至一年多的时间来决定提交的手稿的日子已经一去不复返了。如今,各家期刊都在竞相争取以天为单位的决策时间。一个负面结果,由于敏感性,这里不会详细探讨,是目前的高出版成本。诸如在知名期刊上发表论文对作者的价值,以及在图书馆中拥有完整期刊组合对机构的声誉价值等因素,为商业出版社提供了一个可以增加订阅和文章处理成本的环境。可以这么说,近年来,不断上涨的订阅和出版成本已经成为世界各地作者和机构面临的一个重大问题。在作者看来,在某些情况下,出版的总收入可能超过出版商直接成本的400%,虽然利用商业机会当然是合法的,但对于行业内的一个群体从另一个群体那里获得过高的利润同样不利于行业的长期福祉。作者意识到,近年来,为了应对出版商收费的上升,许多大学减少了期刊的持有量,这将不可避免地对未来学生获取信息的机会产生负面影响,并最终影响研究质量。此外,通过将排版服务转移到劳动力成本相对较低的国家等途径来降低成本,可能意味着在校对阶段的科学专业知识水平降低,从而有可能增加已发表文章的语法和其他错误发生率。近几十年来,科学出版部门的发展导致了第二个明显问题的领域是手稿审查过程。包括《草原研究》在内的期刊目前都在努力解决一个问题,即研究人员不愿接受审稿邀请。在20世纪70年代,典型的情况是,像新西兰这样的国家的研究人员一旦被任命,就可以一直工作到退休,对他们的研究项目的方向有很大的个人选择,报告要求也相对宽松。审查的邀请很少被拒绝,而且是作为工作的一部分,由雇主支付时间。在本世纪20年代,研究人员通常会竞争性地向资助机构投标。这些投标包括研究人员的时间和雇佣成本,在没有资金的情况下可能会终止。在这种情况下,接受评审邀请的研究人员实际上是在自己的时间里免费工作,通常是在正常工作时间之外。对于商业出版社来说,继续期望像过去那样免费进行评论是不合理的。具有讽刺意味的是,一个审稿人在自己的时间提交一份同行评议报告,在他们的家人上床睡觉之后,或者在早餐前的清晨会议之后,通常会在几秒钟后收到一封乏味的电脑生成的电子邮件,向他们保证他们的贡献是重要的,并受到期刊的赞赏!越来越多的研究人员习惯性地拒绝接受评审邀请,这一点也不奇怪。为了应对越来越多的审稿人的不情愿,许多出版商现在鼓励他们的处理编辑在第一次收到手稿时同时邀请多名审稿人,这样就可以迅速满足要求的审稿数量。这种立场是对审稿人时间的不尊重,因为这会造成不必要的审稿人被获取的风险。从相反的角度来看,如果作者同时向多家期刊提交一份手稿,目的是在第一个或最容易接受的期刊上发表,出版商将其视为不端行为。作者感觉到这里存在双重标准。出版商需要对审稿人在出版过程中的投入进行公平的补偿。在审稿人光谱的另一端,由于审稿人没有专业知识来识别问题,或者仅仅因为审稿人认为手稿的某个部分是正确的而没有检查,或者审稿人对研究人员的工作表现出误解,而未能发现手稿中的严重问题,这些审稿现在成为编辑部发现和处理的问题。当一篇有缺陷的手稿被接受时,期刊在其他作者中的地位可能会降低;同样,没有编辑想要让作者失望,因为他会退回一篇带有不合理评论或修改要求的评论。当研究人员接受评审邀请时,需要谨慎和专业。 问题的另一个方面是,许多出版社的工作人员受过商业或沟通方面的培训,而不是科研方面的培训,他们很难看到问题的真实程度,因为他们的编辑部面临着审稿人不情愿和一些审稿质量差的问题。第三个值得关注的问题是出版出版物的压力对作者行为的影响。在极端情况下,作者会采取具体的不当行为,如篡改或捏造
{"title":"What is a paper mill?","authors":"Cory Matthew","doi":"10.1002/glr2.70027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/glr2.70027","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this editorial, I will attempt to capture some thoughts for reflection and discussion on the science publication process, as it currently presents to researchers. Publication—communication of findings—is both a natural sequel to and an integral part of research, and critical to researchers' career development. Unfortunately, while there are many positives, there are also some significant emerging issues needing to be resolved in today's science publication sector. From a philosophical perspective, the aim of the publishing process should be to distill and communicate the key new information generated by a research project. Publication has an archival function (creating a record of what was done), a networking function (allowing researchers in the same field to learn from and build on each other's findings), and a knowledge building function (contributing to the sum of human knowledge).</p><p>A bogey word often raised in recent years is ‘paper mill’, defined as the fraudulent creation of superficially normal manuscripts for sale to authors who are prepared to use such tactics to enhance their CVs and advance their careers. A recent analysis in Nature (Van Noorden, <span>2023</span>) indicated that 3% of all articles published in medicine and biology in the last two decades are likely to be paper mill products. A second current concern is ‘predatory publishing’ defined as the collection of publication fees without the normal quality and integrity controls associated with scientific publication.</p><p>The scientific publication sector is large, and researchers often don't appreciate just how large. Among the well-known Scientific publishers, Springer have 3000+, Taylor and Frances 2700+, Elsevier 2600+ and Wiley 1600+ journal titles, according to publishers' own websites. MDPI, regarded by some but not by the writer as a predatory publisher has 473 journal titles. In their 2023 Annual Report, MDPI indicate 655 000 papers submitted and 285 244 published in that year, with 1.4 million peer review reports received. Internet sources indicate over 5 million scientific papers per year published currently with 744 000 papers from China and 624 000 from the United States in journals listed by Scopus in 2020. Considering that a typical article processing charge for open access publication is in the range of $US 2000–3500 and journals using a subscription model presumably have a similar revenue, it is immediately clear that the total financial turnover associated with the global scientific publishing sector is similar to the GDP of a medium sized country, such as Australia.</p><p>The scientific publication sector has also grown and evolved dramatically over the last 50 years. A Clarivate Web of Science search by the writer for papers with the topic ‘grassland’ returned 423 articles in the period 1971–1975, 11 459 articles in the period 1996–2000, and 37 939 articles in the last 5 years. Corresponding numbers for papers from China were 0, 192 and 14 056.","PeriodicalId":100593,"journal":{"name":"Grassland Research","volume":"4 3","pages":"191-193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/glr2.70027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145197039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}