Dunleavy Daniel J
Center for Translational Behavioral Science, Florida State University, 2010 Levy Ave, Building B, Suite B0266, Tallahassee, FL 32310 USA.
Eur J Philos Sci. 2022;12(4):61. doi: 10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8. Epub 2022 Nov 9.
Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality - focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality - one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.
尽管一直受到关注，但找到区分“好”与“坏”学术期刊的适当标准仍然是一个难以实现的目标。在本文中，我提出了一个受伊姆雷·拉卡托斯及其“科学研究纲领方法论”（MSRP）启发的解决方案。我首先回顾了几项评估期刊质量的显著尝试——主要关注影响因子以及期刊黑名单和白名单的发展。在此过程中，我指出了它们的局限性，并将其总体目标与科学哲学中的目标联系起来。我认为，拉卡托斯的MSRP，特别是他对“进步”和“退化”研究纲领的分类，可以类推并重新用于学术期刊的评估。我认为这个替代框架解决了上述一些局限性，并提供了一个对期刊质量更周全的评估——一个有助于解释期刊层面出版实践的历史演变以及对学术知识增长（或阻碍）的相关贡献的评估。通过这样做，期刊划分这一看似棘手的问题就得到了缓解。在此过程中，我使用了两种新工具（错误指数和scite指数）来进一步说明和实施MSRP的各个方面。
