{"title":"利用与质量相关的量化指标区分有问题和无问题期刊上的文章","authors":"Dimity Stephen","doi":"arxiv-2405.06308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in\nquestionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative\nindicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can\nbe deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences\nobserved. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of\nspelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size\nand internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and\ninformed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on\nstatistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16\njournals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier\njournals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles\ndo diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in\npsychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the\neffect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS\njournals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as\nunder-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of\nerrors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a\ncomprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality\",\"authors\":\"Dimity Stephen\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2405.06308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in\\nquestionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative\\nindicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can\\nbe deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences\\nobserved. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of\\nspelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size\\nand internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and\\ninformed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on\\nstatistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16\\njournals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier\\njournals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles\\ndo diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in\\npsychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the\\neffect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS\\njournals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as\\nunder-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of\\nerrors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a\\ncomprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries\",\"volume\":\"131 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2405.06308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2405.06308","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
本研究探讨了根据通常与质量相关的定量指标区分问题期刊(QJ)与非问题期刊中文章的可行性。随后,我研究了根据观察到的差异可以推断出 QJ 期刊中文章质量的哪些方面。我对比了 31 家 QJ 的 1714 篇文章、16 家被 Web of Science(WoS)收录的期刊的 1691 篇文章以及 45 家中级期刊的 1900 篇文章中的摘要和全文长度、拼写错误的普遍程度、文章的可读性、参考文献和引用文献的数量、作者团队的规模和国际化程度、伦理和知情同意声明的记录,以及是否存在基于统计错误的错误决策,所有这些文章都属于心理学领域。结果表明,在反映同行评审和编辑过程效果的定量质量指标上,QJ 文章确实与心理学同行评审期刊设定的学科标准存在差异。然而,中级期刊和世界期刊也受到潜在质量问题的影响,如伦理和知情同意程序报告不足,以及在解释统计数据时存在错误。要全面了解高质量期刊的文章质量,还需要进一步的研究。
Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality
This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in
questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative
indicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can
be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences
observed. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of
spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size
and internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and
informed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on
statistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16
journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier
journals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles
do diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in
psychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the
effect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS
journals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as
under-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of
errors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.