Abstract:This study aimed to identify editorial features that can distinguish predatory and legitimate open access journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. Fifty- six journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and an equal number of journals from Beall’s updated list of potential predatory journals (PPJs) were selected for a close examination. Analyses showed that these two groups of journals differed markedly in a large number of editorial features: certain publication frequencies, contact address and contact information, mean number of articles published per year, specialized focus, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editor(s)-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editorial board members, availability of the guide for authors and aims/scope sections, an APC for open access, mean APC, claimed indexation by DOAJ, provision of ethical guidelines and publishing policies, and presence of DOIs. Nevertheless, they did not differ significantly with regard to mean years of editorial activity, mention of average peer review time, mention of acceptance rate, mean number of editorial board members, mean number of editors, listing of editorial boards, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/ERIC/Scopus/Web of Science, COPE membership, and availability of ISSNs. These findings point to distinguishing editorial features that language and linguistics scholars need to consider when they look for legitimate open access journals to disseminate their research.
摘要:本研究旨在识别语言和语言学学科中可以区分掠夺性和合法开放获取期刊的编辑特征。开放获取期刊目录(DOAJ)中的56种期刊和Beall更新的潜在掠夺性期刊(PPJs)中的同等数量的期刊被选中进行仔细检查。分析表明，这两组期刊在许多编辑特征上存在显著差异:某些出版频率、联系地址和联系信息、每年发表的平均文章数量、专业重点、平均同行评审时间、声称采用同行评审、提交模式、主编名单、他们的专业知识的相关性、编辑委员会成员的平均人数、作者指南和目标/范围部分的可用性、开放获取的APC、平均APC、DOAJ声称的索引、道德准则和出版政策的规定、以及doi的存在。然而，在平均编辑活动年数、提及的平均同行评审时间、提及的接受率、编委会成员的平均人数、编辑的平均人数、编委会名单、谷歌Scholar/ERIC/Scopus/Web of Science的声称索引、COPE会员资格和issn的可用性方面，他们并没有显著差异。这些发现指出，语言和语言学学者在寻找合法的开放获取期刊来传播他们的研究时，需要考虑不同的编辑特征。
{"title":"Predatory and Legitimate Open Access Journals in Language and Linguistics: Where Do They Part Ways?","authors":"Hassan Nejadghanbar, G. Hu","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This study aimed to identify editorial features that can distinguish predatory and legitimate open access journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. Fifty- six journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and an equal number of journals from Beall’s updated list of potential predatory journals (PPJs) were selected for a close examination. Analyses showed that these two groups of journals differed markedly in a large number of editorial features: certain publication frequencies, contact address and contact information, mean number of articles published per year, specialized focus, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editor(s)-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editorial board members, availability of the guide for authors and aims/scope sections, an APC for open access, mean APC, claimed indexation by DOAJ, provision of ethical guidelines and publishing policies, and presence of DOIs. Nevertheless, they did not differ significantly with regard to mean years of editorial activity, mention of average peer review time, mention of acceptance rate, mean number of editorial board members, mean number of editors, listing of editorial boards, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/ERIC/Scopus/Web of Science, COPE membership, and availability of ISSNs. These findings point to distinguishing editorial features that language and linguistics scholars need to consider when they look for legitimate open access journals to disseminate their research.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"161 1","pages":"224 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76392503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Okagbue, N. J. Igwe, Mercy T. Kayode-Adeyemi, Oluranti Ionathan, Sanjay Misra
Abstract:This article examines the relationship between four review policies (RP) run by different BioMed Central (BMC) journals, namely single-blind peer review (SBPR), double-blind peer review (DBPR), open peer review (OPR), and transparent peer review (TPR), and CiteScore and Journal impact factor (JIF). As of December 12, 2021, BMC publishes 306 journals, of which 14 were discontinued. The final data set was 213 journals with data on CiteScore and JIF. Descriptive statistics and the use of violin and mosaic plots were used. Normality tests were conducted and non-parametric correlation and analysis of variance and Mann Whitney tests were used. Moderation analysis was used to assess the extent of the relationship between CiteScore and JIF. 14 (4.8%) are run with DBPR, and 22 (7.5%), 211 (72.3%) and 45 (15.4%) are run with OPR, SBPR and TPR respectively. Analysis of the final dataset shows that the mean, median, and standard deviation of the CiteScore of the 213 journals are 5.64, 4.80, and 3.65, respectively, while the mean, median, and standard deviation of the JIF of the 213 journals are 4.27, 3.36 and 2.90. In descending order, the CiteScore and JIF across the four RP are highest in DBPR, SBPR, OPR, and TPR. There is a strong positive correlation (Spearman rho = 0.87318, p-value < 8.7e-68) between the CiteScore and JIF of the 213 BMC journals. Mann Whitney test (U = 14771.5, Wilcoxon W = 37562.5, Z = −6.228, p-value < 0.000) shows that there is an evidence of significance median differences between the CiteScore and JIF of the 213 journals. There are significant median differences in the CiteScore in JIF across the four review policies. Finally, the RP moderates the relationship between CiteScore and JIF and between JIF and Cite-Score, respectively. This article reveals that the review policies adopted by BMC journals are somewhat related to the journal metrics that measure the impact, prestige, relevance, and acceptability of the respective journals.
摘要:本文研究了不同BMC期刊的单盲同行评议(SBPR)、双盲同行评议(DBPR)、开放同行评议(OPR)和透明同行评议(TPR)四种评议策略与CiteScore和期刊影响因子(JIF)之间的关系。截至2021年12月12日，BMC出版306种期刊，其中14种已停刊。最终的数据集是213种期刊，数据来自CiteScore和JIF。使用了描述性统计和小提琴和马赛克情节的使用。采用正态性检验、非参数相关、方差分析和Mann Whitney检验。适度分析用于评估CiteScore和JIF之间的关系程度。DBPR组14例(4.8%)，OPR组22例(7.5%)，SBPR组211例(72.3%)，TPR组45例(15.4%)。对最终数据集的分析表明，213种期刊的CiteScore的均值、中位数和标准差分别为5.64、4.80和3.65，而JIF的均值、中位数和标准差分别为4.27、3.36和2.90。从降序来看，四个RP的CiteScore和JIF在DBPR、SBPR、OPR和TPR中最高。213种BMC期刊的CiteScore与JIF存在较强的正相关(Spearman rho = 0.87318, p值< 8.7e-68)。Mann Whitney检验(U = 14771.5, Wilcoxon W = 37562.5, Z = - 6.228, p值< 0.000)表明，213种期刊的CiteScore与JIF中位数存在显著性差异。在四种审查策略中，JIF的CiteScore中值存在显著差异。最后，RP分别调节了CiteScore与JIF、JIF与Cite-Score之间的关系。这篇文章揭示了BMC期刊所采用的审评政策在一定程度上与衡量各自期刊的影响力、声望、相关性和可接受性的期刊指标有关。
{"title":"Review Policy Moderates the Correlation Between CiteScore and JIF For BMC Journals","authors":"H. Okagbue, N. J. Igwe, Mercy T. Kayode-Adeyemi, Oluranti Ionathan, Sanjay Misra","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article examines the relationship between four review policies (RP) run by different BioMed Central (BMC) journals, namely single-blind peer review (SBPR), double-blind peer review (DBPR), open peer review (OPR), and transparent peer review (TPR), and CiteScore and Journal impact factor (JIF). As of December 12, 2021, BMC publishes 306 journals, of which 14 were discontinued. The final data set was 213 journals with data on CiteScore and JIF. Descriptive statistics and the use of violin and mosaic plots were used. Normality tests were conducted and non-parametric correlation and analysis of variance and Mann Whitney tests were used. Moderation analysis was used to assess the extent of the relationship between CiteScore and JIF. 14 (4.8%) are run with DBPR, and 22 (7.5%), 211 (72.3%) and 45 (15.4%) are run with OPR, SBPR and TPR respectively. Analysis of the final dataset shows that the mean, median, and standard deviation of the CiteScore of the 213 journals are 5.64, 4.80, and 3.65, respectively, while the mean, median, and standard deviation of the JIF of the 213 journals are 4.27, 3.36 and 2.90. In descending order, the CiteScore and JIF across the four RP are highest in DBPR, SBPR, OPR, and TPR. There is a strong positive correlation (Spearman rho = 0.87318, p-value < 8.7e-68) between the CiteScore and JIF of the 213 BMC journals. Mann Whitney test (U = 14771.5, Wilcoxon W = 37562.5, Z = −6.228, p-value < 0.000) shows that there is an evidence of significance median differences between the CiteScore and JIF of the 213 journals. There are significant median differences in the CiteScore in JIF across the four review policies. Finally, the RP moderates the relationship between CiteScore and JIF and between JIF and Cite-Score, respectively. This article reveals that the review policies adopted by BMC journals are somewhat related to the journal metrics that measure the impact, prestige, relevance, and acceptability of the respective journals.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"363 1","pages":"192 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76523952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"John Flowerdew and Pejman Habibie. Introducing English for Research Publication Purposes.","authors":"Kecheng Zhang, Jun Lei","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0060","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88422930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Text recycling—commonly referred to as self-plagiarism—is an issue that is currently garnering considerable attention with regard to its acceptability as a practice and questions of when, where, and how much of it can be permissible. Although the problem of self-plagiarism or excessive text recycling can, in the opinion of some, be circumvented by paraphrasing and the reordering of text, the practice does not constitute a legitimate means to generate new and original text. A possible means to moderate the problem of text recycling that is strongly recommended is a declaration statement explicitly stating and identifying the use of recycled text. Further problems with text recycling relate to questions as to who is the progenitor of any recycled text in question and therefore who is the owner, in a moral sense, of the text under scrutiny in cases of changing sets of authors. This leads to concerns over insufficient author attribution. On the other hand, excessive attribution can result if a too conservative mindset is adopted. Due care and cognizance of excessive/insufficient attribution are necessary to avoid such problems as well as a recognition of the concept of text ownership as described herein. Such concerns are not limited to text recycling but are present also for other types of contributions to a publication covering both mundane physical contributions (e.g., supply of materials, organisms, or apparatuses) and the continuing deployment of previously espoused or established metaphysical contributions (e.g., ideas, hypotheses, strategies, or concepts or the instigation of projects).
{"title":"Text Recycling and Excessive Attribution: A Pragmatic Perspective","authors":"K. Klika","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Text recycling—commonly referred to as self-plagiarism—is an issue that is currently garnering considerable attention with regard to its acceptability as a practice and questions of when, where, and how much of it can be permissible. Although the problem of self-plagiarism or excessive text recycling can, in the opinion of some, be circumvented by paraphrasing and the reordering of text, the practice does not constitute a legitimate means to generate new and original text. A possible means to moderate the problem of text recycling that is strongly recommended is a declaration statement explicitly stating and identifying the use of recycled text. Further problems with text recycling relate to questions as to who is the progenitor of any recycled text in question and therefore who is the owner, in a moral sense, of the text under scrutiny in cases of changing sets of authors. This leads to concerns over insufficient author attribution. On the other hand, excessive attribution can result if a too conservative mindset is adopted. Due care and cognizance of excessive/insufficient attribution are necessary to avoid such problems as well as a recognition of the concept of text ownership as described herein. Such concerns are not limited to text recycling but are present also for other types of contributions to a publication covering both mundane physical contributions (e.g., supply of materials, organisms, or apparatuses) and the continuing deployment of previously espoused or established metaphysical contributions (e.g., ideas, hypotheses, strategies, or concepts or the instigation of projects).","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"8 1","pages":"177 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82457667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Seth J. Schwartz. The Savvy Academic: Publishing in the Social and Health Sciences.","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86528525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Book Proposal Book: A Guide for Scholarly Authors by Laura Portwood-Stacer","authors":"Steven E. Gump","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2021-0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2021-0024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82056590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tove Faber Frandsen, R. Lamptey, E. M. Borteye, V. Teye
Abstract:There are frequent discussions in many research communities about publishing in predatory and questionable outlets. It is necessary to address the researchers who publish in these publications, since this problem could be resolved if researchers stopped engaging with them. One of the factors contributing to an author's decision to engage with these journals is the advantage of having more publications and editorial board involvement when they apply for a faculty position or a promotion. Fast-tracking promotions using questionable publications is an increasing problem, as scholars see the strategy working well for their colleagues. Universities are increasingly being called upon to take action. Promotion guidelines are vital for setting expectations, and more specifically pressures and incentives, when addressing the issue of questionable journals. In the case study presented in this article, new promotion guidelines have been developed at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana to discourage faculty members from publishing in questionable journals. A verification process for all publications listed in promotion applications has been implemented. Since the implementation of this scheme in October 2019, 221 researchers have applied for promotion. Our analysis shows that one fifth of submitted publications do not meet the new criteria. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the proportion of verified publications and an applicant's college or total number of listed publications. The implications of these findings are discussed.
{"title":"Achieving a Professorship with Proper Academic Merit: Discouraging Questionable Publishing","authors":"Tove Faber Frandsen, R. Lamptey, E. M. Borteye, V. Teye","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2021-0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2021-0021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:There are frequent discussions in many research communities about publishing in predatory and questionable outlets. It is necessary to address the researchers who publish in these publications, since this problem could be resolved if researchers stopped engaging with them. One of the factors contributing to an author's decision to engage with these journals is the advantage of having more publications and editorial board involvement when they apply for a faculty position or a promotion. Fast-tracking promotions using questionable publications is an increasing problem, as scholars see the strategy working well for their colleagues. Universities are increasingly being called upon to take action. Promotion guidelines are vital for setting expectations, and more specifically pressures and incentives, when addressing the issue of questionable journals. In the case study presented in this article, new promotion guidelines have been developed at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana to discourage faculty members from publishing in questionable journals. A verification process for all publications listed in promotion applications has been implemented. Since the implementation of this scheme in October 2019, 221 researchers have applied for promotion. Our analysis shows that one fifth of submitted publications do not meet the new criteria. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the proportion of verified publications and an applicant's college or total number of listed publications. The implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"52 1","pages":"155 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89260809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Making the Most of Your Research Journal by Nicole Brown","authors":"S. Donovan","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88183256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Predatory publishing is an increasingly difficult challenge to ignore because it threatens the integrity of research literature and scholarship. Still, this scholarly area is largely overlooked in journalism and media communications (J&MC) literature. This case study examines two J&MC journals from companies listed as possibly predatory by analyzing the experiences of scholars purportedly affiliated with them. Using a survey and interviews, the analysis suggests that these journals used deceptive and unethical tactics to recruit scholars as ostensible editorial board members and reviewers. Some scholars were listed without their consent or knowledge, and others asked unsuccessfully to be removed from the journals' posted list of editorial board members and/or reviewers. However, some say they find their affiliation rewarding intellectually, for their careers, and for the discipline. The findings have practical implications for J&MC scholarship, especially for developing country academics with insufficient English-language proficiency and who face publish-or-perish pressures from their universities and government higher education ministries.
{"title":"Predatory Journals in Journalism and Mass Communication: A Case Study of Deceptions","authors":"Eric M. Freedman, B. Kurambayev","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2021-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2021-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Predatory publishing is an increasingly difficult challenge to ignore because it threatens the integrity of research literature and scholarship. Still, this scholarly area is largely overlooked in journalism and media communications (J&MC) literature. This case study examines two J&MC journals from companies listed as possibly predatory by analyzing the experiences of scholars purportedly affiliated with them. Using a survey and interviews, the analysis suggests that these journals used deceptive and unethical tactics to recruit scholars as ostensible editorial board members and reviewers. Some scholars were listed without their consent or knowledge, and others asked unsuccessfully to be removed from the journals' posted list of editorial board members and/or reviewers. However, some say they find their affiliation rewarding intellectually, for their careers, and for the discipline. The findings have practical implications for J&MC scholarship, especially for developing country academics with insufficient English-language proficiency and who face publish-or-perish pressures from their universities and government higher education ministries.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"20 1","pages":"136 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84391097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：