MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4243541277 · doi:10.1002/lio2.141

Open access: Is there a predator at the door?

2018· editorial· en· W4243541277 sur OpenAlexaff
Rakesh K. Chandra, Edward Fisher, Terry M. Jones, David W. Kennedy, Dennis H. Kraus, John H. Krouse, Michael Link, Lawrence R. Lustig, Bert W. O’Malley, Jay F. Piccirillo, Robert J. Ruben, Robert T. Sataloff, Raj Sindwani, Richard J. Smith, Michael G. Stewart, Peter Weber, D. Bradley Welling, Robin Youngs

Notice bibliographique

RevueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2018
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Établissements canadiensCanadian Journal of Communication (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInternet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPublicationPublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Readers, If your inbox looks like ours, you are barraged daily with requests to send research to a new journal or to join a new editorial board. Many of these “invitations” are from new open access journals, not all of which are legitimate. Open access journals play an increasingly important role in today's world of medical publication and provide information which would otherwise be difficult or impossible for some to access. Openly sharing peer-reviewed information at no cost to the reader can greatly enhance distribution of legitimate scientific and clinical data. However, there is also an increasing number of journals purporting to serve this mission but acting in a predatory fashion. Here are a few guidelines. What defines a predatory journal? Moher and Moher recently summed up the characteristics neatly by suggesting that such publications can, perhaps, be characterized by their behavior: aggressive recruitment emails, unrealistic promises regarding publication, and ultimately worthless peer review.1 A number of published articles suggest the lack of an editorial review process as a key characteristic of predatory journal publications. One article described predatory journal publications as “gobbledegook.”2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers in 2005 invented software called SCIgen, which randomly combined strings of words to produce fake computer-generated science papers that were ultimately published in open access journals. This exercise was performed to show the low bar for acceptance of papers, which were meaningless, or as they put it, “to maximize amusement”. In 2014, Van Noorden pointed out in Nature News that several publishers were removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after it was discovered that “the works were computer-generated non-sense”3. More subtle forms of non-gibberish, but also non-peer-reviewed publications, seem to be expanding rapidly. Rather than motivation of the publisher to promote the science and practice of medicine, the impetus is clearly financial. They charge large sums of money to publish articles unable to pass a rigorous editorial or peer review process, which can be quite lucrative. Likewise, authors who may have been rejected by legitimate peer-reviewed journals may find that some open access journals offer an avenue for publication without editorial oversight. Therefore, we suggest the following guidelines when evaluating whether a journal is predatory. We recommend an excellent recent editorial by Roberts, which shares our opinion entitled “Predatory Journals: Think before you submit”4 Our goal is to provide high-quality, rigorously peer-reviewed papers and scientific information of value to you and all of our readers. Rakesh Chandra, MD Co-Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Edward W. Fisher, MA, DM (Oxon), FRCS Senior Editor, Journal of Laryngology and Otology Terry M. Jones, BSc(Hons), MBBS, FRCSEd, FRCS(ORL-HNS), MD Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Otolaryngology David W. Kennedy, MD Editor-in-Chief, International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology Dennis H. Kraus, MD, FACS Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery -part B John H. Krouse, MD, PhD, MBA Editor-in-Chief, Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Editor-in-Chief, OTO-Open Michael Link, MD Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery -part B Lawrence R. Lustig, MD Editor-in-Chief, Otology & Neurotology Bert W. O'Malley, Jr., MD Editor-in-Chief, Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Jay F. Piccirillo, MD, FACS Editor-in-Chief, JAMA Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery Robert Ruben, MD, FAAP, FACS Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology Robert T. Sataloff, MD, DMA, FACS Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Voice; Editor-in-Chief, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal Raj Sindwani, MD Co-Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Richard J. Smith, MD Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology Michael G. Stewart, MD, MPH, FACS Editor-in-Chief, The Laryngoscope Peter C. Weber, MD Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Otolaryngology D. Bradley Welling, M.D., Ph.D., FACS Editor-in-Chief, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology Robin Youngs, MBBS MD FRCS Senior Editor, Journal of Laryngology and Otology

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,068
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Science ouverte, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Science ouverte, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,107
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,068
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,006
Communication savante0,0170,010
Science ouverte0,0660,053
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,011

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,108
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologyMême sujetAcademic Publishing and Open AccessTravaux en français237 207