透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.149.251.155
  • 期刊

小心披著羊皮的狼-淺談開放取用與掠奪性期刊

Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: A Brief Introduction to Open Access and Predatory Journals

摘要


資訊科技的發達,徹底地改變學術期刊發行的樣貌。近年來,隨著開放取用(open access)文章與期刊大行其道,也衍生掠奪性出版(predatory publishing)及掠奪性期刊(predatory journal)等「學術黑市」的問題。掠奪性期刊以收取文章處理費牟利為目的,缺乏文章審查機制,研究數據可能涉及造假、欺瞞、違反學術倫理且嚴重破壞學術秩序;一經散播引用,可能誤導後續研究發展方向,影響公共政策推行,阻礙社會進步甚或全民健康,然大多護理人員對此議題仍感到十分陌生,亦缺乏相關論述。有鑑於此,本文簡述開放取用的發展背景及掠奪性期刊的特性,並解析如何辨識可疑期刊與預防因應之道,期能增進護理人員、護理學生與投稿者對此亂象的瞭解,在論文投稿或引用文獻時能提防此類偽科學,以維護學術誠信及護理專業永續發展。

並列摘要


The advance of information technology has led to the significant diversification of scholarly publishing. Over the past decade, the popularity of open access in scholarly publishing has led to an unintended rise in the number of predatory journals and the growth in predatory open access (POA) publishing practices. The main goal of POA publishing is to profit from article processing charges, and thus little or no attention is given to proper peer review or to editorial / publishing standards. Most articles published in predatory journals are tainted by examples of academic ethics violations such as falsification, deception, and fraud. Moreover, the risk of citation contamination is high, as articles published in POA publications may be cited and referenced in the legitimate scientific literature, with consequences including confounding subsequent research, negatively influencing public policies, and hindering social progress and public health. However, most nurses in Taiwan remain unfamiliar with this issue. This article provides a brief review of the open access movement and insights regarding how to assess the credentials of journals and publishers before submitting manuscripts to avoid predatory journals, promote academic integrity, and contribute to the sustainable development of the nursing profession.

參考文獻


彭台光(2018).商管領域掠奪型出版:學術期刊黑名單與白名單及因應建議.管理學報,35(2),241–266。[Peng, T. K. (2018). Predatory publishing in business and management: Journal whitelists/blacklists and cautionary notes. Journal of Management and Business Research, 35(2), 241–266.] httsp://doi.org/10.6504/JMBR.201806_35(2).0005
Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy, 48(2), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Budzinski, O., Grebel, T., Wolling, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2185–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3
Chawla, D. S. (2021, February 8). Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database [News]. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0

延伸閱讀