|
In academic publishing, predatory open access publishing describes an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). "Beall's List", a regularly-updated report by Jeffrey Beall, sets forth criteria for categorizing predatory publications and lists publishers and independent journals that meet those criteria. Newer scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of becoming the victim of these practices. == History and Beall's List == The term "predatory open access" was conceived by University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall. After noticing a large number of emails inviting him to submit articles or join the editorial board of previously unknown journals, he began researching open-access publishers and created ''Beall's List'' of ''potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers''.〔 Beall has also written on this topic in ''The Charleston Advisor'',〔 in ''Nature'', and in ''Learned Publishing''. Preceding Beall's efforts was the well-known case of a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense (using SCIgen) submitted by a Cornell University graduate student, Phil Davis (editor of the ''Scholarly Kitchen'' blog), which was accepted for a fee (but withdrawn by the author) by one of the open-access publishers now included on Beall's List (Bentham Open). Doubts about honesty and scams in open-access journals had already been raised in 2009.〔Beall, Jeffrey (2009), "Bentham Open", ''The Charleston Advisor'', Volume 11, Number 1, July 2009, pp. 29-32(4) ()〕 Concerns for spamming practices from the "black sheep among open access journals and publishers" ushered the leading open access publishers to create the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in 2008.〔Eysenbach, Gunther. Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Originally posted 2008-03-08, updated (postscript added) 2008-04-21, 2008-04-23, 2008-06-03. (). Accessed: 2008-06-03. (Archived by WebCite at ())〕 In another early precedent, in 2009 the ''Improbable Research'' blog had found that Scientific Research Publishing's journals duplicated papers already published elsewhere; the case was subsequently reported in ''Nature''. Beall published his first list of predatory publishers in 2010.〔 In August 2012 he posted his criteria for evaluating publishers,〔 with the second edition posted on December 1 the same year. In February 2013 he added a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion in the list.〔 In a more recent test of this evolving system of publishing (''Who's Afraid of Peer Review?''), John Bohannon, a staff writer for ''Science'' magazine and popular science publications targeted the open access system in 2013 by submitting to a number of such journals a deeply flawed paper on the purported effect of a lichen constituent. About 60% of those journals, including the ''Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals'', accepted the faked medical paper, although 40%, including the most established one (''PLOS ONE''), did reject it. As a result, this experiment was criticised for being not peer-reviewed itself and for having a flawed methodology and lack of a control group. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Predatory open access publishing」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|