• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals.掠夺性期刊时代学术作者的最佳实践。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 Feb;98(2):77-9. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056.
2
'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.“掠夺性”开放获取:文章数量与市场特征的纵向研究
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 1;13:230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
3
[The different models of scientific journals].[科学期刊的不同模式]
Med Trop Sante Int. 2023 Dec 8;3(4). doi: 10.48327/mtsi.v3i4.2023.454. eCollection 2023 Dec 31.
4
Analysis of thirteen predatory publishers: a trap for eager-to-publish researchers.十三家掠夺性出版商分析:急于发表论文的研究人员的陷阱。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Jan;34(1):157-162. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1358160. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
5
Predatory Open Access in Rehabilitation.康复领域的掠夺性开放获取
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 May;98(5):1051-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.01.002. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
6
Predatory Publishing in Orthopaedic Research.骨科学术研究中的掠夺性出版。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Nov 7;100(21):e138. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01569.
7
Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals.在掠夺性期刊上发表文章的伦理问题。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Jun 15;27(2):279-284. doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.030.
8
Due diligence in the open-access explosion era: choosing a reputable journal for publication.开放获取蓬勃发展时代的尽职调查:选择声誉良好的期刊进行发表
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2017 Nov 15;364(21). doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx206.
9
What I learned from predatory publishers.我从掠夺性出版商那里学到的东西。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Jun 15;27(2):273-278. doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.029.
10
Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison.潜在的掠夺性和正规生物医学期刊:你能区分出来吗?一项横断面比较。
BMC Med. 2017 Mar 16;15(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.开放获取出版:泌尿外科准备好了吗?一项关于作者、读者以及编辑委员会的知识、看法和满意度的调查。
World J Urol. 2025 Sep 8;43(1):542. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05928-3.
2
Unmasking Greenwashing: Mapping Hijacked Medicine Journals to the Sustainable Development Goals.揭露绿色伪装:将被劫持的医学期刊与可持续发展目标进行映射。
Adv Pharm Bull. 2024 Dec 30;14(4):729-736. doi: 10.34172/apb.43763. Epub 2024 Sep 24.
3
Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training.约旦研究者对掠夺性期刊的认知:培训的必要性。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Nov 28;30(6):58. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00519-8.
4
Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization.全球视角下的种族与研究:新殖民主义的剥削与地方的边缘化。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jun 23;20(13):6210. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20136210.
5
Birthing a New Journal: Why Bother?创办一本新期刊:何苦为之?
PRiMER. 2017 Feb 8;1:4. doi: 10.22454/PRiMER.2017.1.4. eCollection 2017 Sep.
6
Impacts of Novel Vietnamese Government Regulations on Radiological PhD and Professorship Candidates: an Initial Report.越南政府新规定对放射学博士和教授职位候选人的影响:初步报告
Acta Inform Med. 2020 Jun;28(2):152-156. doi: 10.5455/aim.2020.28.152-156.
7
Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.期刊掠夺性开放获取:院校知识与态度调查评估研究。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Apr;108(2):208-218. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2020.849. Epub 2020 Apr 1.
8
Assessing Impact of Biomedical Scholarship in the Information Age: Observations on the Evolution of Biomedical Publishing and a Proposal for a New Metric.评估信息时代生物医学学术研究的影响:对生物医学出版演变的观察及新指标提案
Perm J. 2019;23. doi: 10.7812/TPP/18.037. Epub 2019 Aug 22.
9
Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.生物医学学科领域的作者与编辑对掠夺性期刊的看法:调查研究
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 30;21(8):e13769. doi: 10.2196/13769.
10
The Past Informs the Present, Academic New Media Pitfalls: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons.以史为鉴,学术新媒体的陷阱:整形外科医生入门指南
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Apr 1;7(4):e2178. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002178. eCollection 2019 Apr.

本文引用的文献

1
How to hijack a journal.如何操纵一本期刊。
Science. 2015 Nov 20;350(6263):903-5. doi: 10.1126/science.350.6263.903.
2
Is the impact factor the only game in town?影响因子是唯一重要的指标吗?
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015 Sep;97(6):405-8. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2015.0028.

掠夺性期刊时代学术作者的最佳实践。

Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals.

作者信息

Beall J

机构信息

Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of Colorado , US.

出版信息

Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 Feb;98(2):77-9. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056.

DOI:10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056
PMID:26829665
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5210492/
Abstract

'Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to understanding our potential.' Margaret J Wheatley. The focus of any academic or research author is to share his or her findings, and to gain respect and reward for publishing. The ideal journal is one that not only publishes an article quickly but also helps the author to improve the article before publication through peer review, selects only the best research so that the author's article lies alongside other high quality articles, and provides maximum (and long-term) visibility and access to the article. Unfortunately, in the real world, authors need to make tradeoffs between high quality journals, those that work quickly, those that are willing to accept the article and those that provide the best access. Into this mix has come the potential of open access as a means of increasing visibility: journals publish the article without a subscription barrier so anyone, anywhere, can read the article. However, the growth of open access (pushed by institutions, grant bodies and governments as a means of improving human health and knowledge) has come with some unforeseen consequences. In this article, Jeffrey Beall discusses one recent phenomenon that has arisen from the open access movement: that of 'predatory publishers'. These are individuals or companies that use the open access financial system (author pays, rather than library subscribes) to defraud authors and readers by promising reputable publishing platforms but delivering nothing of the sort. They frequently have imaginary editorial boards, do not operate any peer review or quality control, are unclear about payment requirements and opaque about ownership or location, include plagiarised content and publish whatever somebody will pay them to publish. Predatory publishers generally make false promises to authors and behave unethically. They also undermine the scholarly information and publishing environment with a deluge of poor quality, unchecked and invalidated articles often published on temporary sites, thus losing the scholarly record. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian in Denver, US, has watched the rise of such fraudulent practice, and manages a blog site that names publishers and journals that he has identified as predatory. While Beall's lists can provide librarians and knowledgeable authors with information on which journals and publishers to be cautious about, several legitimate publishers, library groups and others have joined forces to educate and inform authors in what to look for when selecting journals to publish in (or read). This initiative, called Think. Check. Submit. (http://thinkchecksubmit.org/), was launched in the latter half of 2015 and hopes to raise awareness of disreputable journals while clearly separating them from valid, high quality, open access journals (of which there are many). PIPPA SMART Guest Editor.

摘要

“持续努力,而非力量或智慧,是挖掘自身潜力的关键。”玛格丽特·J·惠特利。任何学术或研究作者的关注点都在于分享其研究成果,并因发表成果而获得尊重和回报。理想的期刊不仅能迅速发表文章,还能通过同行评审在发表前帮助作者改进文章,只挑选最优秀的研究成果,以便作者的文章能与其他高质量文章并列,并且能让文章获得最大程度(且长期)的曝光和获取途径。不幸的是,在现实世界中,作者需要在高质量期刊、发表速度快的期刊、愿意接收文章的期刊以及提供最佳获取途径的期刊之间进行权衡。在这种情况下,开放获取作为一种增加曝光度的方式应运而生:期刊发表文章时没有订阅限制,这样无论任何人在任何地方都能阅读文章。然而,开放获取的发展(受到机构、资助机构和政府推动,作为改善人类健康和知识的一种手段)带来了一些意想不到的后果。在本文中,杰弗里·比尔讨论了开放获取运动中出现的一个近期现象:“掠夺性出版商”现象。这些个人或公司利用开放获取的财务体系(作者付费,而非图书馆订阅)来欺骗作者和读者,他们承诺提供声誉良好的出版平台,但实际上却并非如此。他们常常设有虚构的编辑委员会,不进行任何同行评审或质量控制,付款要求不明确,所有权或所在地不透明,包含抄袭内容,只要有人付费就发表任何东西。掠夺性出版商通常会向作者做出虚假承诺,行为不道德。他们还通过大量质量低劣、未经审核且无效的文章(这些文章常常发表在临时网站上)破坏学术信息和出版环境,从而丢失学术记录。美国丹佛的一位图书馆员杰弗里·比尔见证了这种欺诈行为的兴起,并管理着一个博客网站,该网站列出了他认定为掠夺性的出版商和期刊。虽然比尔的列表可以为图书馆员和知识渊博的作者提供有关哪些期刊和出版商需要谨慎对待的信息,但一些合法的出版商、图书馆团体和其他机构已联合起来,教育并告知作者在选择发表(或阅读)的期刊时应注意什么。这项名为“思考。检查。提交。”(http://thinkchecksubmit.org/)的倡议于2015年下半年发起,希望提高人们对不良期刊的认识,同时将它们与合法、高质量的开放获取期刊(这类期刊有很多)清晰地区分开来。皮帕·斯马特 客座编辑