Beall's List Removed: What Stands Between Us and Open Access Predators?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The ease in which electronic journals can be launched has led to the emergence of a new type of “scientific” journal, focused entirely on revenues and barely concerned with content, alas attempting to camouflage as the real thing. In 2010 Jeffrey Beall created an online public repository that listed open access journals suspected of predatory behavior, based on 52 predefined criteria, such as lack of peer review process, appointing fake academic boards, and false operating location.1Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing.Nature. 2013; 495: 433-435Crossref PubMed Scopus (238) Google Scholar Beall's list served as a platform for publications addressing the topic of open access predatory journals.2Shen C. Bjork B.C. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 230Crossref PubMed Scopus (447) Google Scholar Of 30 consecutive unsolicited e-mails to a pediatrician (FBM) (n = 10), dermatologist (DM) (n = 10), and internist (EB) (n = 10) requesting paper submissions, all but 1 were on Beall's list. The OMICS Publishing Group prominently appeared on Beall's list. In 2013 the US National Institute of Health stopped listing OMICS publications in PubMed Central and requested that this publisher stop making false claims of US government affiliations.3Kaiser J. U.S. government accuses open access publisher of trademark infringement.www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/05/us-government-accuses-open-access-publisher-trademark-infringementGoogle Scholar OMICS threatened to sue Beall, seeking $1 billion in damages,4New J. Publisher threatens to sue blogger for $1-billion.www.chronicle.com/article/Publisher-Threatens-to-Sue/139243/Google Scholar and Beall felt “personally threatened.”5Chappell B. Publisher threatens librarian with $1 billion lawsuit.www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184233141/publisher-threatens-librarian-with-1-billion-lawsuitGoogle Scholar Another open access publisher (Canadian Center for Science and Education) stated that inclusion of their company on Beall's list was defamation and threatened “civil action.”6Flaherty C. Librarians and lawyers.www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/15/another-publisher-accuses-librarian-libelGoogle Scholar On January 17, 2017 Beall's List and blog were taken offline. The University of Colorado declared that this decision was a “personal one” from Beall.7Chawla D.S. Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears.www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/mystery-controversial-list-predatory-publishers-disappearsGoogle Scholar Though it was speculated that the list would be moved to the stewardship of Cabell's International, the company denied any relationship with Beall, stating that the blog shut down owing to “threats and politics.”8Straumsheim C. No more ‘Beall's List’.www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politicsGoogle Scholar Currently the no-longer-updated list can be retrieved through web archiving services and will probably become obsolete over time. Though online directories, such as the “Directory of Open Access Journals,” enable to check for whitelisted journals, we are not aware of an active source warning against potential predatory journals. We believe that the scientific community should benefit from a regularly updated list of open access predatory journals, as was provided by Beall. We propose that international scientific organizations, such as the International Committee of Journals Editors, should take up this challenge and define criteria enabling the distinction between legitimate medical and scientific journals and predatory journals. Refraining from addressing the emergence of pseudo-journals publishing pseudo-science may slowly erode the legitimacy of well-conducted science.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,036 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle