先不说掠夺性出版商,那“灰色”出版商呢?

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
David Nicholas, Eti Herman, Abdullah Abrizah, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Anthony Watkinson, Marzena Świgoń, Jie Xu, Hamid R. Jamali, Carol Tenopir
{"title":"先不说掠夺性出版商,那“灰色”出版商呢?","authors":"David Nicholas, Eti Herman, Abdullah Abrizah, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Anthony Watkinson, Marzena Świgoń, Jie Xu, Hamid R. Jamali, Carol Tenopir","doi":"10.3145/epi.2023.sep.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by ‘grey’ open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct.","PeriodicalId":20684,"journal":{"name":"Profesional De La Informacion","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Never mind predatory publishers… what about ‘grey’ publishers?\",\"authors\":\"David Nicholas, Eti Herman, Abdullah Abrizah, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Anthony Watkinson, Marzena Świgoń, Jie Xu, Hamid R. Jamali, Carol Tenopir\",\"doi\":\"10.3145/epi.2023.sep.09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by ‘grey’ open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Profesional De La Informacion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Profesional De La Informacion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.09\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Profesional De La Informacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.09","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

Harbingers项目研究了早期职业研究人员(ecr) 6年的工作生活和学术交流行为,发现了对可疑(灰色)出版的态度正在改变的证据。因此,尽管掠夺性出版商被视为一个容易解决的问题,但越来越多的人担心大量低水平的研究正在产生,其中一些是由“灰色”开放获取出版商为了更好的名称而产生的(可疑和非标准也被使用)。随着最近(2023年)马来西亚政府(预兆案例国家)宣布,基于质量和成本原因,不会为MDPI、Frontiers和Hindawi发表的文章提供文章处理费(apc),我们开始了解这一决定背后的原因,以及其他国家是否表现出类似的担忧。这些信息是通过询问来自澳大利亚、中国、法国、以色列、马来西亚、波兰、西班牙、英国和美国的国家领导(主要是研究型大学的领导)进行桌面研究来获得的,以确定正在发生什么。研究发现,像ecr这样的国家似乎形成了两个不同的阵营,中国、波兰、法国和西班牙加入了对这些出版商感到担忧的阵营,而英国、美国、以色列和澳大利亚则属于漠不关心的阵营。他们提供了分裂的解释,并考虑了马来西亚的立场是否会在其他地方占上风。最后,在本文中,我们提出了问题/关注点,而不是提供可靠的、系统的数据。为了进行系统的研究,我们必须等待我们希望进行的更全面的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Never mind predatory publishers… what about ‘grey’ publishers?
The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by ‘grey’ open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct.
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
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: El profesional de la información es una revista sobre información, bibliotecas y nuevas tecnologías de la información. Primera revista española de Biblioteconomía y Documentación indexada por las dos bases de datos bibliográficas internacionales más importantes: ISI Social Science Citation Index y Scopus
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信