学术界应该停止使用beall的列表,并回顾它们在以前研究中的使用情况

J. A. Teixeira da Silva, G. Kendall
{"title":"学术界应该停止使用beall的列表,并回顾它们在以前研究中的使用情况","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, G. Kendall","doi":"10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.","PeriodicalId":388483,"journal":{"name":"Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ACADEMIA SHOULD STOP USING BEALL’S LISTS AND REVIEW THEIR USE IN PREVIOUS STUDIES\",\"authors\":\"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, G. Kendall\",\"doi\":\"10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":388483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

学者(应)努力提交学术上健全和学术性强的期刊。要做到这一点,他们可以向只出现在安全名单上的期刊投稿(偶尔被称为白名单,尽管往往避免使用这个术语),或者避免向监视名单上的期刊投稿(偶尔被称为黑名单,尽管往往避免使用这个术语)。这些名单中最著名的是由杰弗里·比尔策划的。Beall 's Lists(有两个,一个用于独立期刊,一个用于出版商)于2017年1月被Beall本人下线。在2017年之前,Beall’s Lists被广泛引用和使用,包括对学术出版做出定量声明。即使在比尔清单过时之后(在过去的六年里,它们没有被维护),它们仍然被广泛引用和使用。本文认为,在2017年之前和之后使用Beall’s Lists可能构成方法学上的错误,即使论文有免责声明或限制部分指出这一弱点,它们的结论也并不总是可靠的。本文还认为,有必要对使用Beall’s Lists的文献中的报告进行详细的出版后评估,以验证他们的发现和结论,假设Beall’s Lists不是科学调查的可靠资源这一观点已被接受。最后,本文认为,任何论文,发现了方法上的错误,应予以纠正。一些从比尔的榜单中克隆出来的榜单也出现了,并被引用。这些也应该包括在任何发表后的调查中。
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
ACADEMIA SHOULD STOP USING BEALL’S LISTS AND REVIEW THEIR USE IN PREVIOUS STUDIES
Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.
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
JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS FOR RELAPSING POLYCHONDRITIS TREATMENT: A HYPOTHESIS HYPERTROPHIC OSTEOARTHROPATHY IN A PATIENT WITH HETEROZYGOUS MUTATION IN THE SLCO2A1 GENE: A CASE REPORT MANUSCRIPTS WITH FAKE CHATGPT-CREATED REFERENCES: A CASE STUDY PREDATORY PUBLISHING AND WASTE OF RESOURCE MY LIFE AS AN EDITOR AND CONSULTANT OF MEDICAL JOURNALS
×
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