草食期刊与掠夺性期刊——这场战斗已经输了,接下来会发生什么?

A. Khokhlov, G. Morgunova
{"title":"草食期刊与掠夺性期刊——这场战斗已经输了,接下来会发生什么?","authors":"A. Khokhlov, G. Morgunova","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Herbivore journals vs predatory journals – the battle is already lost, what’s next?\",\"authors\":\"A. Khokhlov, G. Morgunova\",\"doi\":\"10.24069/sep-22-18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editor and Publisher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这组作者将科学期刊分为两大类——“草食期刊”(不向作者收取发表文章费用的订阅期刊)和“掠夺性期刊”——坚持不道德的编辑和伦理政策的付费期刊。因此,“掠夺性出版商”是那些出版“掠夺性期刊”的公司。通常,这些发布者的文章都是以开放获取模式发布的。考虑了将科学出版物归类为“掠夺性”的标准。需要强调的是,出版物的“收费”性质并不一定使其成为“掠夺性的”,而是造成一种情况,即使用“黄金”开放获取的出版商几乎总是对出版作品的最大数量感兴趣,而大大降低了寄给编辑部的手稿的质量要求。简要地考虑了Jeffrey Beall名单的情况——它出现的历史,包括出版商和一些个别期刊在内的标准,取消该名单的可能原因,今天访问该名单的途径。分析了科学家们在付费期刊上发表文章而不是在免费订阅期刊上发表文章的原因,免费订阅期刊的评级通常更高。本文概述了作者对开放获取模式下出版物的优势明显不明显的考虑。MDPI出版商在现代科学家中非常受欢迎,但杰弗里·比尔(不仅是他)称其为“掠夺性的”,目前的情况被详细考虑。文章强调,“掠夺性期刊”存在的既定原则主要是满足文章的作者自己,他们被出版过程的速度和“高保证”所吸引。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Herbivore journals vs predatory journals – the battle is already lost, what’s next?
The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geopolitics and publication strategy. Is there a dependance? Metadata of articles in the field of agriculture: complications in translating from Russian into English Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group flowchart: Authorship & Contributorship – Pre-publication Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group flowchart: Scientific rigor – Unpublished data What do our trade journals publish?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1