Title: Analýza predátorských znaků publikací jako služba Knihovny univerzitního kampusu
Variant title:
- Predatory attributes analysis of publications as the University campus library service
Source document: ProInflow. 2018, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 70-107
Extent
70-107
-
ISSN1804-2406 (online)
Persistent identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/ProIn2018-2-6
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/138451
Type: Article
Language
License: CC BY 3.0 CZ
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
Účel – Od roku 2017 Knihovna univerzitního kampusu (KUK) poskytuje pracovištím v Univerzitním kampusu Bohunice službu na prověření přítomnosti znaků typických pro tzv. predátorské časopisy a vydavatele. Metoda – Po obdržení vyplněného online formuláře na webu knihovny pověření zaměstnanci analyzují formální atributy časopisů, jakými jsou kontaktní informace, autorské poplatky, redakční rada, délka recenzního řízení, indexace v odborných databázích, scientometrické metriky, Open Access režim a další. Výsledky – Během prvního roku se na KUK o tuto službu obrátilo 41 uživatelů se 134 požadavky na prověření časopisů, vydavatelů a konferencí, které trvalo úhrnem 65 hodin. Přitom bylo jako podezřelé vyhodnoceno 39 časopisů, 2 konference a 3 vydavatelé. Nejčastější prohřešky proti publikační etice byly netransparentnost recenzního řízení, (22 případů), podobnost názvu s prestižním časopisem (20), neuvedení hlavního editora (18) nebo žádný kontakt na něj (17), nedodržování periodicity (18), fiktivní osoby v redakční radě (14), nejasně stanovené autorské poplatky (13) a napodobování impakt faktoru (11). Originalita/hodnota – Z hlediska ekonomických a personálních nároků se zavedení služby ukázalo efektivnější než využívání externí služby Cabells Scholarly Analytics. Poskytování služeb zároveň vedlo ke zvýšení prestiže KUK v očích akademické obce, když práce knihovníků byla oceněna vedením lékařské fakulty či uživateli opakovaně využívající tuto službu. Zároveň poskytování služby vedlo KUK k přehodnocení relevantnosti některých znaků predátorství, otevření interní diskuse o vhodnosti pojmu "predátorské časopisy" a přehodnocení způsobu poskytování služby na ověřování dodržování transparentnosti a dobré praxe vědeckého publikování stanoveného organizacemi COPE, DOAJ, OASPA a WAME.
Purpose – Since 2017 the University Campus Library has been providing service intended to uncover typical attributes of so-called predatory journals. The service is provided exclusively to PhD students and researchers from CEITEC, Faculty of Sports Studies, Faculty of Medicine and departments of Faculty of Science situated in the University Campus Bohunice. Design/methodology/approach – Responsible persons in the library analyze formal attributes of journals e.g. contact details, author fees, editorial board, peer review, indexing in databases, metrics and Open Access. Requests are submitted via a form available on the website. Results – A total of 134 requests submitted by 41 users were handled during first year of service. It took 65 hours to perform all of these analyses. Overall 39 journals, 2 conferences and 3 publishers were found suspicious. The most frequent attributes were lack of information regarding review time (22), mimicking titles of trustworthy high-quality scholarly journals (20), no information about editor-in-chief (18) or lack of his/her contact details (17), irregular periodicity (18), fictional members of editorial board (14), unspecified or missing article processing charges and using misleading metrics. Originality/value – From economics and personal view the service proved to be more efficient and much cheaper than Cabell's Scholarly Analytics. Coincidentally providing the service has led to an increase in library reputation and a reassessment of the importance of some attributes to check. One of the side-effects is re-consideration of the term "predatory journals" and whether it is still appropriate and explanatory enough. The best way how to evaluate formal attributes of scholarly journals is on the COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME principles of transparency basis.
References
[1] ABC Journals. (2016). Indexation. Retrieved 11 May 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20161110193120/http://www.abcjar.us/indexation.html
[2] Academic Research Publishing Group. (2018). Indexed/abstracted in. Retrieved 11 May 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180410122150/https://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=18&info=inde
[3] Allied Business Academies. (2018). Authors Guidelines. Retrieved 10 May 2018, from https://www.abacademies.org/journals/international-journal-of-entrepreneurship-authors-guidelines.html
[4] Anderson, R. (2017). Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review. Retrieved 13 April 2018, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/
[5] Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017). A walk on the wild side: an investigation into the quantity and quality of 'predatory' publications in Italian academia. Pisa: Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna. Retrieved from http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2017-01.pdf
[6] Beall, J. (2013). Avoiding the Peril of Publishing Qualitative Scholarship in Predatory Journals. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 8(1), 1–12.
[7] Beall, J. (2015a). Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (3rd ed.). [Denver: University of Colorado]. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf
[8] Beall, J. (2015b). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. DOI 10.1177/0266666915601421 |
[9] Beall, J. (2017). Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20170103170903/https://scholarlyoa.com/
[10] Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall's List Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. | DOI 10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
[11] Bisaccio, M. (2018a). Cabells' Journal Whitelist and Blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing, 1–6. DOI 10.1002/leap.1164 |
[12] Bisaccio, M. (2018b). Cabells Quote Request.
[13] Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613–613. DOI 10.1038/526613f |
[14] COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, & WAME. (2018). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf
[15] Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14.
[16] Danevska, L., Spiroski, M., Donev, D., Pop-Jordanova, N., & Polenakovic, M. (2016). How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals. Prilozi (Makedonska Akademija Na Naukite I Umetnostite. Oddelenie Za Medicinski Nauki), 37(2–3), 5–13. DOI 10.1515/prilozi-2016-0011 |
[17] DOAJ. (c2017). Information for publishers. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from https://doaj.org/publishers
[18] Eriksson Stefan, & Helgesson Gert. (2017). Time to stop talking about 'predatory journals'. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. DOI 10.1002/leap.1135 |
[19] Forrester Amy, Björk Bo‐Christer, & Tenopir Carol. (2017). New web services that help authors choose journals. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 281–287. DOI 10.1002/leap.1112 |
[20] Harvey, H. B., & Weinstein, D. F. (2017). Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 150–151. DOI 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001521 |
[21] Harzing, A.-W., & Adler, N. J. (2016). Disseminating knowledge: from potential to reality- new open-access journals collide with convention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(1), 140–156. DOI 10.5465/amle.2013.0373 |
[22] Impact Journals. (c2018). Oncotarget. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from http://www.oncotarget.com/index.php?journal=oncotarget
[23] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016a). Zápis z 87. jednání KHV konaného dne 6. 6. 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016, from http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=780525
[24] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016b). Zápis z 312. zasedání Rady pro výzkum, vývoj a inovace. Praha: Úřad vlády České republiky. Retrieved from http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=766310&ad=1&attid=772342
[25] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016c, March 7). Zápis z 84. jednání KHV. Retrieved 11 May 2016, from http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=772589
[26] Kratochvíl, J., & Plch, L. (2017). Predátorské časopisy: praktiky jejich vydavatelů a jak se jim bránit. Vnitřní lékařství, 63(1), 5–13.
[27] Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Praha: IDEA CERGE-EI. Retrieved from http://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdf
[28] Masarykova univerzita. (2016). Postoj MU k tzv. predátorským vydavatelům a odborným časopisům. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/do/rect/metodika/VaV/56012837/Vyzkum_a_predatorske_casopisy.pdf
[29] McCook, A. A. (2018). Indexing company praises cancer journal, then kicks it out. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/19/indexing-company-praises-cancer-journal-kicks/
[30] Nelson, N., & Huffman, J. (2015). Predatory Journals in Library Databases: How Much Should We Worry? The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 169–192. DOI 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782 |
[31] Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F. G., Wilson, A. D. M., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., … Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS One, 10(8), 1–20. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0132557 |
[32] OASPA. (c2017). Membership Criteria. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/
[33] Oransky, I. (2017). Why did Beall's List of potential predatory publishers go dark? Retrieved 6 April 2017, from http://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/17/bealls-list-potential-predatory-publishers-go-dark/
[34] PLoS ONE. ([c2018]). Journal Information. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
[35] Richter, V., & Pillerová, V. (2017). Analýza věkové, vzdělanostní a mzdové struktury pracovníků knihoven v ČR 2016/2017: zpráva z průzkumu. Praha: Národní knihovna ČR. Retrieved from http://ipk.nkp.cz/docs/copy3_of_Analza_Vzdlavani_zprva_2017_DEF.pdf
[36] Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., … Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1). DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 |
[37] Silver, A. (n.d.). Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature News. DOI 10.1038/nature.2017.22090 |
[38] Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El Profesional de La Información, 25(5), 730–737. | DOI 10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03
[39] U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2016). Fact Sheet: MEDLINE® Journal Selection [Fact Sheets]. Retrieved 9 November 2016, from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html
[40] Ústřední knihovnická rada ČR. (n.d.). Koncepce celoživotního vzdělávání knihovníků (CŽV). Retrieved 13 April 2018, from http://ipk.nkp.cz/docs/celozivotni-vzdelavani/koncepce-czv-pdf
[41] Wallace, J. (Ed.). (2008). ECP-2007-DILI-537003 PEER: Final report, 1 September 2008 - 31 May 2012. [Hague, Netherlands]: Publishing and the Ecology of European Research. Retrieved from http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_D4_final_report_29SEPT11.pdf
[42] WAME. (2015). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved 10 December 2017, from http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice
[43] Watson, R. (2017). Beall's list of predatory open access journals: RIP. Nursing Open, 4(2), 60–60. DOI 10.1002/nop2.78 |
[44] Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS ONE, 11(1). DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 |
[2] Academic Research Publishing Group. (2018). Indexed/abstracted in. Retrieved 11 May 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180410122150/https://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=18&info=inde
[3] Allied Business Academies. (2018). Authors Guidelines. Retrieved 10 May 2018, from https://www.abacademies.org/journals/international-journal-of-entrepreneurship-authors-guidelines.html
[4] Anderson, R. (2017). Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review. Retrieved 13 April 2018, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/
[5] Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017). A walk on the wild side: an investigation into the quantity and quality of 'predatory' publications in Italian academia. Pisa: Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna. Retrieved from http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2017-01.pdf
[6] Beall, J. (2013). Avoiding the Peril of Publishing Qualitative Scholarship in Predatory Journals. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 8(1), 1–12.
[7] Beall, J. (2015a). Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (3rd ed.). [Denver: University of Colorado]. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf
[8] Beall, J. (2015b). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. DOI 10.1177/0266666915601421 |
[9] Beall, J. (2017). Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20170103170903/https://scholarlyoa.com/
[10] Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall's List Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. | DOI 10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
[11] Bisaccio, M. (2018a). Cabells' Journal Whitelist and Blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing, 1–6. DOI 10.1002/leap.1164 |
[12] Bisaccio, M. (2018b). Cabells Quote Request.
[13] Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613–613. DOI 10.1038/526613f |
[14] COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, & WAME. (2018). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. United Kingdom: Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf
[15] Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14.
[16] Danevska, L., Spiroski, M., Donev, D., Pop-Jordanova, N., & Polenakovic, M. (2016). How to Recognize and Avoid Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Open-Access Publishers, Standalone, and Hijacked Journals. Prilozi (Makedonska Akademija Na Naukite I Umetnostite. Oddelenie Za Medicinski Nauki), 37(2–3), 5–13. DOI 10.1515/prilozi-2016-0011 |
[17] DOAJ. (c2017). Information for publishers. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from https://doaj.org/publishers
[18] Eriksson Stefan, & Helgesson Gert. (2017). Time to stop talking about 'predatory journals'. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. DOI 10.1002/leap.1135 |
[19] Forrester Amy, Björk Bo‐Christer, & Tenopir Carol. (2017). New web services that help authors choose journals. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 281–287. DOI 10.1002/leap.1112 |
[20] Harvey, H. B., & Weinstein, D. F. (2017). Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 150–151. DOI 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001521 |
[21] Harzing, A.-W., & Adler, N. J. (2016). Disseminating knowledge: from potential to reality- new open-access journals collide with convention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(1), 140–156. DOI 10.5465/amle.2013.0373 |
[22] Impact Journals. (c2018). Oncotarget. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from http://www.oncotarget.com/index.php?journal=oncotarget
[23] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016a). Zápis z 87. jednání KHV konaného dne 6. 6. 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016, from http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=780525
[24] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016b). Zápis z 312. zasedání Rady pro výzkum, vývoj a inovace. Praha: Úřad vlády České republiky. Retrieved from http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=766310&ad=1&attid=772342
[25] Komise pro hodnocení výsledků výzkumných organizací a ukončených programů. (2016c, March 7). Zápis z 84. jednání KHV. Retrieved 11 May 2016, from http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=772589
[26] Kratochvíl, J., & Plch, L. (2017). Predátorské časopisy: praktiky jejich vydavatelů a jak se jim bránit. Vnitřní lékařství, 63(1), 5–13.
[27] Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Praha: IDEA CERGE-EI. Retrieved from http://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdf
[28] Masarykova univerzita. (2016). Postoj MU k tzv. predátorským vydavatelům a odborným časopisům. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/do/rect/metodika/VaV/56012837/Vyzkum_a_predatorske_casopisy.pdf
[29] McCook, A. A. (2018). Indexing company praises cancer journal, then kicks it out. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/19/indexing-company-praises-cancer-journal-kicks/
[30] Nelson, N., & Huffman, J. (2015). Predatory Journals in Library Databases: How Much Should We Worry? The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 169–192. DOI 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782 |
[31] Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F. G., Wilson, A. D. M., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., … Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS One, 10(8), 1–20. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0132557 |
[32] OASPA. (c2017). Membership Criteria. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/
[33] Oransky, I. (2017). Why did Beall's List of potential predatory publishers go dark? Retrieved 6 April 2017, from http://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/17/bealls-list-potential-predatory-publishers-go-dark/
[34] PLoS ONE. ([c2018]). Journal Information. Retrieved 21 April 2018, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
[35] Richter, V., & Pillerová, V. (2017). Analýza věkové, vzdělanostní a mzdové struktury pracovníků knihoven v ČR 2016/2017: zpráva z průzkumu. Praha: Národní knihovna ČR. Retrieved from http://ipk.nkp.cz/docs/copy3_of_Analza_Vzdlavani_zprva_2017_DEF.pdf
[36] Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., … Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1). DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 |
[37] Silver, A. (n.d.). Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature News. DOI 10.1038/nature.2017.22090 |
[38] Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El Profesional de La Información, 25(5), 730–737. | DOI 10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03
[39] U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2016). Fact Sheet: MEDLINE® Journal Selection [Fact Sheets]. Retrieved 9 November 2016, from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html
[40] Ústřední knihovnická rada ČR. (n.d.). Koncepce celoživotního vzdělávání knihovníků (CŽV). Retrieved 13 April 2018, from http://ipk.nkp.cz/docs/celozivotni-vzdelavani/koncepce-czv-pdf
[41] Wallace, J. (Ed.). (2008). ECP-2007-DILI-537003 PEER: Final report, 1 September 2008 - 31 May 2012. [Hague, Netherlands]: Publishing and the Ecology of European Research. Retrieved from http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_D4_final_report_29SEPT11.pdf
[42] WAME. (2015). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved 10 December 2017, from http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice
[43] Watson, R. (2017). Beall's list of predatory open access journals: RIP. Nursing Open, 4(2), 60–60. DOI 10.1002/nop2.78 |
[44] Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS ONE, 11(1). DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 |