Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.     

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.     

Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?

This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated where predatory/fake journals (PFJs) are founded, which countries’ researchers publish more frequently in PFJs, the identity of the editors of PFJs, why researchers publish in PFJs, and what factors encourage such publications. A survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews were used to collect data. The results indicate that the majority of PFJs are located in developing countries; 119 journals provided incorrect postal addresses; the greatest number of researchers who published in PFJs are from India, Nigeria, and Turkey, suggesting that most of the publications in PFJs are submitted by researchers in developing countries; the interviewed Turkish researchers submitted their articles to PFJs in pursuit of rapid academic promotion; the incentive allowance system encourages researchers to publish in PFJs; and the well-known “publish-or-perish” pressure and unawareness are other potential factors that drive participants to submit their papers to PFJs.     

高校学报本校科研人员发文情况探究--基于104个高校人文社会科学学报发文情况的量化分析

对104个高校人文社会科学学报的数据采集,探索现阶段高校学报的本校科研人员发文情况,并分析其对高校学报影响力的影响。研究表明：高校学报的本校科研人员发文比率在20%—60%之间;985或211高校、具有社科博士点高校学报更倾向于刊发本校作者的论文;从区域上来看,华东、华北、东北的高校学报更倾向于刊发本校作者的论文;CSSCI 和非 CSSCI 高校学报在本校科研人员发文占比上差异不显著;高校学报的本校科研人员发文占比并未显著影响学报的影响力。     

引导科研成果在国内科技期刊发表的策略

结合科学引文索引数据库的初衷及其由来、SCI 收录的局限性、影响因子的初衷到《旧金山科研评估宣言》,阐述了 SCI 的学术和商业本质,论证了引导国内科技工作者将科研成果特别是原创性成果在我国期刊发表的建议,不仅有利于促进国内科研环境的和谐与持续发展,而且有利于进一步提升我国科技期刊的学术影响力.     

科研创新中农业科技期刊4大功能提升对策 ——以《山东农业科学》为例

以《山东农业科学》为对象研究省级农业科技期刊在科研创新中的科研传播、科研导向、科研提升、人才培养4大功能。认为农业科技期刊应以这4项功能的有效提升为要旨:通过采取拓展稿源渠道、纸媒与网络出版并举、载文信息量增大等措施,实现刊物科研成果传播功能的提升;通过增设新学科栏目、提高新学科论文占比、启迪科研人员立题思路,实现科研导向功能的提升;通过增加研究类论文分量、调整刊文研(究)技(术)类占比、增加基金项目论文、提高刊物影响因子,实现科研提升功能的提升;通过建立与青年学科带头人的联系机制、精选在校研究生论文、提高作者论文写作能力,实现人才培养功能的提升。     

科技期刊编辑要把“学习上的缺点”当缺点

从社会、单位、个人3个层次阐述科技期刊编辑要把“学习上的缺点”当缺点的重要意义,从主观、客观2个角度剖析出现不把“学习上的缺点”当缺点这一问题的原因,从激发崇尚学习的内动力、提高重新学习的创新力、增强落实学习制度的执行力3个方面探讨解决该问题的对策,从而提高科技期刊编辑的综合素质.     

我国科技论文外流问题探析

我国科技论文外流是学术评价的导向效应、SCI期刊吸引投稿的马太效应、我国期刊质量欠佳的离心效应、组稿和审稿不力的编辑效应等多种因素综合作用的结果.应提高刊物质量、重构评价指标、提高服务水平以缓解论文外流,也应从学术交流的科学本位理性看待论文外流问题.     

A comparative study of cross-domain research output and citations: Research impact cubes and binary citation frequencies

Across the various scientific domains, significant differences occur with respect to research publishing formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature and organisation of research and the number and impact of a given domain's academic journals. Consequently, differences occur in the citations and h-indices of the researchers. This paper attempts to identify cross-domain differences using quantitative and qualitative measures. The study focuses on the relationships among citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across domains and for research group sizes. The analysis is based on the research output of approximately 10,000 researchers in Slovenia, of which we focus on 6536 researchers working in 284 research group programmes in 2008–2012.As comparative measures of cross-domain research output, we propose the research impact cube (RIC) representation and the analysis of most-cited papers, highest impact factors and citation distribution graphs (Lorenz curves). The analysis of Lotka's model resulted in the proposal of a binary citation frequencies (BCF) distribution model that describes well publishing frequencies. The results may be used as a model to measure, compare and evaluate fields of science on the global, national and research community level to streamline research policies and evaluate progress over a definite time period.     

发挥高校学报在学校科研决策中的促进作用

论述如何发挥高校学报对学校科研的促进作用,为学校科研决策提供科学依据.介绍如何选择学报论文学术评价指标,并应用计算机技术创建包括各评价指标的资料齐备的学报稿件处理数据库,在实现学报收、审、编、排、发一体化的同时,及时、有效地进行学报论文信息统计评价,建立学校学术动态评价体系,为学校科研决策提供参考意见和建议,使高校学报不但能客观反映学校的科研状况,而且还能对学校的科研起积极的促进作用.     

我国英文科技期刊发展中值得注意的几个问题

英文科技期刊是促进学术信息交流和科学知识传播的重要平台。近年来,国家对英文科技期刊的培育给予了大力支持,英文期刊数量明显增加。本文通过分析已有研究成果、结合自身工作经验,指出当前我国英文科技期刊办刊过程中存在办刊动机不纯、办刊能力不足、期刊评价标准单一、期刊发展急功近利等问题,进而给出办好英文科技期刊的相关建议,即端正办刊思想,明确初心与使命;坚持正确的学术导向,以优质内容促进期刊发展;遵循期刊发展规律,合理规划期刊各发展阶段的目标,保证期刊有序健康合理发展。     

努力实现高校学报与学术团队的良性互动

高校科研学术团队的迅速成长,为学报办刊带来了新的挑战和机遇.高校学报应改变传统的封闭武的办刊模式,紧紧跟踪优势团队,热情扶植有发展前景的后起团队,协助组建新的学术团队,倡导并组织交叉学科的学术活动.这样,学术团队可尽快发布研究成果,占领学术阵地,而学报则可获得优秀稿件.在双方的互动中,把"出成果,出人才"落到实处,以实现良性循环.     

用编辑整合规范方法整合规范问题图表的案例分析

基于编辑整合规范的理论和方法,以几种优秀科技期刊为实证分析对象,阐述运用编辑整合规范方法,对问题图表进行整合规范的基本思路和具体做法:对明显错误的插图——正文舍图;对散乱失范的表格——整合规范;对信息冗余的表格——化繁为简。     

科技期刊编辑应学会显微照片图标尺的使用

医学论文中有许多组织病理图、细胞显微结构图等常常需要放大数百倍才能供医师、研究者分析,显微照片图在医学临床和基础研究中起着举足轻重的作用;但这些照片在电子排版过程中通常会被编排者不同程度地放大或缩小,清楚知道显微照片图的放大倍数很重要,而传统标注放大倍数的方法已不能适应医学论文的需要。国外多数期刊已明确规定显微照片图需要添加标尺,此方法值得国内期刊借鉴。本文以医学期刊为例探讨科技期刊中显微照片图标尺的应用问题,对传统标注显微照片图放大倍数的弊端、添加显微标尺的优势及注意事项进行了比较和介绍。     

Rooted citation graphs density metrics for research papers influence evaluation

Traditionally, citation count has served as the main evaluation measure for a paper's importance and influence. In turn, many evaluations of authors, institutions and journals are based on aggregations upon papers (e.g. h-index). In this work, we explore measures defined on the citation graph that offer a more intuitive insight into the impact of a paper than the superficial count of citations. Our main argument is focused on the identification of influence as an expression of the citation density in the subgraph of citations built for each paper. We propose two measures that capitalize on the notion of density providing researchers alternative evaluations of their work. While the general idea of impact for a paper can be viewed as how many researchers have shown interest to a piece of work, the proposed measures are based on the hypothesis that a piece of work may have influenced some papers even if they do not contain references to that piece of work. The proposed measures are also extended to researchers and journals.     

基于无监督图神经网络的学术文献表示学习研究

学术文献特征表示,是学术文献搜索、分类组织、个性化推荐等学术大数据服务的关键步骤。研究表明,图神经网络能够有效学习文献的特征表示,然而当前研究主要集中在有监督学习方法上,不仅对数据集的大小和质量的要求较高,且学习到的文献特征表示与具体任务高度耦合。基于此,本文将四种无监督图神经网络方法引入学术文献表示学习,从Cora、CiteSeer和DBLP (database systems and logic programming)数据集的引文网络、共被引网络和文献耦合网络中学习文献的表示向量,并应用于文献分类和论文推荐两大下游任务。研究结果表明,(1)深度互信息图神经网络适合于文献分类任务,对抗正则化变分图自编码器则在论文推荐任务上性能更佳;(2)Cora数据集上的结果表明,相较于共被引和文献耦合网络,引文网络更适合于学习通用的文献表示向量。     

英文刊《国际煤炭科学技术学报》国际化出版的经验与教训

为避免拟改造或新创办英文科技期刊国际化发展过程中走入歧途,分析《国际煤炭科学技术学报》(英文)在变更刊名、组建编委会及选择国际合作出版平台等方面走过的弯路,总结在推行专家办刊模式、引进客座主编机制、设立海外编辑分部、聘任海外助理编辑、创新传播推广渠道等方面的成功经验.认为办刊是一项系统工程,没有捷径,失败的教训和成功的经验只是让期刊在前进的路上少走弯路,一步一个脚印,按照既定的办刊方向和目标坚定不移地走下去,才是正确的办刊之道.     

Institutional Open Access Publishing as an Educational Vehicle

This article describes how The Levy Library at The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai founded its institutional Publishing Press and journals to support scientific publishing education. By creating trainee-driven open access journals, the library was able to offer students, trainees and faculty an opportunity to edit, manage and publish scientific articles while learning first-hand about the many facets of scholarly publishing.