首页 / 期刊园地

For more information on predatory publishers, including lists of publishers and standalone journals that meet these criteria, please visit http://scholarlyoa.com
By Jeffrey Beall
3rd edition / January 1, 2015 

The criteria below are intended to provide a framework for analyzing scholarly open-access publishers and journals. The criteria recognize two documents published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Evaluating scholarly open-access publishers is a process that includes closely, cautiously, thoroughly, and at times skeptically examining the publisher's content, practices, and websites: contacting the publisher if necessary, reading statements from the publisher's authors about their experiences with the publisher, and determining whether the publisher commits any of the following practices (below) that are known to be committed by predatory publishers, examining any additional credible evidence about the publisher, compiling very important "back-channel" feedback from scholarly authors, and taking into account counter-feedback from the publishers themselves.

Some journals of course are "single titles." They publish independently of any multi-title publisher. In most cases, however, we evaluate journals that are part of a publisher's multi-title platform. This is very often described as a "fleet," a term meant to clarify that even a new publisher suddenly launches a large number of new journals, ranging from several dozen to hundreds of titles all at once.

The practices described below are meant to apply both to single-title independent journals and to publishers with or multiple or "fleet" journals in their portfolios.

1. Editor and Staff 

· The publisher's owner is identified as the editor of each and every journal published by the organization.

· No single individual is identified as any specific journal's editor.

· The journal does not identify a formal editorial / review board.

· No academic information is provided regarding the editor, editorial staff, and/or review board members (e.g., institutional affiliation).

· Evidence exists showing that the editor and/or review board members do not possess academic expertise to reasonably qualify them to be publication gatekeepers in the journal's field.

· Two or more journals have duplicate editorial boards (i.e., same editorial board for more than one journal).

· The journals have an insufficient number of board members , (e.g., 2 or 3 members), have concocted editorial boards (made up names), name scholars on their editorial board without their knowledge or permission or have board members who are prominent researchers but exempt them from any contributions to the journal except the use of their names and/or photographs.

· There is little or no geographical diversity among the editorial board members, especially for journals that claim to be international in scope or coverage.

· The editorial board engages in gender bias (i.e., exclusion of any female members).

2. Business management

· Demonstrates a lack of transparency in publishing operations.

· Has no policies or practices for digital preservation, meaning that if the journal ceases operations, all of the content disappears from the internet.

· Begins operations with a large fleet of journals, often using a common template to quickly create each journal's home page.

· Provides insufficient information or hides information about author fees, offering to publish an author's paper and later sending an unanticipated "surprise" invoice.

· Does not allow search engines to crawl the published content, preventing the content from being indexed in academic indexes.

· Copy-proofs (locks) their PDFs, thus making it harder to check for plagiarism.

Integrity

· The name of a journal is incongruent with the journal's mission.

· The name of a journal does not adequately reflect its origin (e.g., a journal with the word "Canadian" or "Swiss" in its name when neither the publisher, editor, nor any purported institutional affiliate relates whatsoever to Canada or Switzerland).

· In its spam email or on its website, the publisher falsely claims one or more of its journals have actual (Thomson-Reuters) impact factors, or advertises impact factors assigned by fake "impact factor" services, or it uses some made up measure (e.g. view factor), feigning/claiming an exaggerated international standing.

· The publisher sends spam requests for peer reviews to scholars unqualified to review submitted manuscripts, in the sense that the specialties of the invited reviewers do not match the papers sent to them.

· The publisher falsely claims to have its content indexed in legitimate abstracting and indexing services or claims that its content is indexed in resources that are not abstracting and indexing services.

· The publisher dedicates insufficient resources to preventing and eliminating author misconduct, to the extent that the journal or journals suffer from repeated cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, image manipulation, and the like.

· The publisher asks the corresponding author for suggested reviewers and the publisher subsequently uses the suggested reviewers without sufficiently vetting their qualifications or authenticity. (This protocol also may allow authors to create faux online identities in order to review their own papers).

Other
A predatory publisher may...

· Re-publish papers already published in other venues/outlets without providing appropriate credits.

· Use boastful language claiming to be a "leading publisher" even though the publisher may only be a startup or a novice organization.

· Operate in a Western country chiefly for the purpose of functioning as a vanity press for scholars in a developing country (e.g., utilizing a maildrop address or PO box address in the United States, while actually operating from a developing country).

· Provide minimal or no copyediting or proofreading of submissions.

· Publish papers that are not academic at all, e.g. essays by laypeople, polemical editorials, or obvious pseudo-science.

· Have a "contact us" page that only includes a web form or an email address, and the publisher hides or does not reveal its location.

Poor journal standards / practice

The following practices are considered to be reflective of poor journal standards and, while they do not equal predatory criteria, potential authors should give due consideration to these items prior to manuscript submissions:

· The publisher copies "authors guidelines" verbatim (or with minor editing) from other publishers.

· The publisher lists insufficient contact information, including contact information that does not clearly state the headquarters location or misrepresents the headquarters location (e.g., through the use of addresses that are actually mail drops).

· The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad (e.g., Journal of Education) in order to attract more articles and gain more revenue from author fees.

· The publisher publishes journals that combine two or more fields not normally treated together (e.g., International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology).

· The publisher charges authors for publishing but requires transfer of copyright and retains copyright on journal content. Or the publisher requires the copyright transfer upon submission of manuscript.

· The publisher has poorly maintained websites, including dead links, prominent misspellings and grammatical errors on the website.

· The publisher makes unauthorized use of licensed images on their website, taken from the open web, without permission or licensing from the copyright owners.

· The publisher engages in excessive use of spam email to solicit manuscripts or editorial board memberships.

· The publishers' officers use email addresses that end in .gmail .com, yahoo.com, or some other free email supplier.

· The publisher fails to state licensing policy information on articles or shows lack of understanding of well-known OA journal article licensing standards, or provides contradictory licensing information.

· The publisher lacks a published article retraction policy or retracts articles without a formal statement (stealth retractions); also the publisher does not publish corrections or clarifications and does not have a policy for these issues.

· The publisher does not use standard identifiers such as ISSNs or DOIs or uses them improperly.

· For the name of the publisher, the publisher uses names such as "Network," "Center," "Association," "Institute," and the like when it is only a solitary, proprietary operation and does not meet the definition of the term used or implied non-profit mission.

· The publisher has excessive, cluttered advertising on its site to the extent that it interferes with site navigation and content access.

· The publisher has no membership in industry associations and/or intentionally fails to follow industry standards.

· The publisher includes links to legitimate conferences and associations on its main website, as if to borrow from other organizations’ legitimacy, and emblazon the new publisher with the others' legacy value.

· The publisher displays prominent statements that promise rapid publication and/or unusually quick peer review.

· Evidence exists showing that the publisher does not really conduct a bona fide peer review.

· The publisher appears to focus exclusively on article processing fee procurement, while not providing services for readers, or on billing for fees, while abdicating any effort at vetting submissions.

· The publisher creates a publishing operation that demonstrates rapacious entrepreneurial behavior that rises to level of sheer greed. The individual might have business administration experience, and the site may even have business journals, but the owner seems oblivious to business ethics.

· The publisher or its journals are not listed in standard periodical directories or are not widely cataloged in library databases.

· The publisher copies or egregiously mimics journal titles from other publishers.

· The publisher includes text on its website that describes the open access movement and then foists the publisher as if the publisher is active in fulfilling the movement’s values and goals.

· None of the members of a particular journal's editorial board have ever published an article in the journal.

· There is little or no geographic diversity among the authors of articles in one or more of the publisher's journals, an indication the journal has become an easy outlet for authors from one country or region to get scholarly publications.

· The publisher has an optional "fast-track" fee-based service for expedited peer review which appears to provide assured publication with little or no vetting.

Acknowledgement: The author thanks Bill Cohen and Dr. Michael Firmin for their help on this and an earlier version of this document.

//Source：https://beallslist.weebly.com/?platform=hootsuite。

===========================================

掠夺性期刊判断方法
Jeffrey Beall, 2015.1.1

以下描述的判断方法既适用于那些独立运作的单本期刊，也适用于拥有很多期刊或期刊集群的出版商。

1 编辑及其他员工

·期刊编辑被指定为出版商所有者(publisher's owner)
·没有明确指定期刊编辑
·期刊没有正式的编委会
·缺少对期刊编辑及(或)编委会成员的学术信息描述，如其工作单位信息
·有证据显示期刊编辑及(或)编委会成员在期刊所属领域的学术水平不高，不足以把控期刊的学术质量
·两本及以上的期刊显示的编委会信息相同
·编委会成员太少(如只有2、3人)；乱编姓名，捏造编委会名单；在未告知学者的情况下将其列入编委会名单；有些非常优秀的学者被列入编委会名单，但只挂名不做事
·编委会成员构成几乎没有地域差异，尤其是那些声称收稿范围全球化的期刊
·编委会成员构成存在性别歧视(如将女性排除在外)

2 运营管理

·出版运营缺乏透明度
·对数字化内容长期保存没有明确的政策或实践，这意味着一旦期刊停止运营，之前所有的出版内容都将无法获取
·一下子创办大量期刊，通常会采用一种通用模板灌制各个期刊主页
·向作者收费的信息不明确或者被故意隐藏，往往在文章被录用后才告知作者还要支付一笔费用
·不允许搜索引擎抓取已出版的期刊论文信息，阻止这些内容被索引到任何学术库中
·对文档进行加密处理，使剽窃检查类软件无法工作

3 一致性

·期刊名称与期刊出版任务不匹配
·期刊名称未能准确反映其来源(如刊名中出现了"Canadian"或"Swiss" ，但无论是出版商、编辑乃至编委会成员的工作单位都与“加拿大”或“瑞士”没有关系
·在发送的推广邮件或者网站上显示虚构的科睿唯安影响因子信息，或者捏造出其它评价指标和数据以显示期刊的国际影响力
·由于专业领域不匹配等原因，期刊邀请的同行评议专家并不具备评审指定稿件的学术能力
·出版商谎称期刊内容被某些正规的文摘与检索服务系统所收录，或者声明期刊已被一些资源系统收录、但事实上这些系统并不提供文摘与检索服务
·出版商没有投入足够资源来阻止和消除作者的学术不端行为，剽窃、自我抄袭、图片造假等行为时有发生
·出版商要求通讯作者推荐审稿人，后续在没有充分确认被推荐审稿人的学术资质及可信度的情况下就让其审稿，这种操作甚至会让作者有机会伪造在线身份来评审自己的稿件

4 其他

·重复出版
·出版商夸大自己的地位，比如一些初创的出版商自称是“行业领先的出版机构“
·有些出版商使用美国等地的邮箱及其他通信地址，表面上看起来是在西方国家出版，但实际运营是在发展中国家
·对稿件没有进行足够的编校工作
·发表非学术论文，如非专业研究者的短文或明显的伪科学
·在 “联系我们“页面上仅提供在线表单或者Email地址，无法找到办公地址之类的出版商相关信息

5 较差的期刊标准及实践

如果期刊被发现有以下行为，则表示这些期刊在出版标准及具体实践方面有所欠缺，但还不等同于掠夺性期刊，作者在投稿前充分考虑。

·出版商逐句照搬别家出版社的“作者须知“，或只做细微改动
·出版商联系信息不全,?包括联系信息没有明确的总部位置，或提供不实的总部位置?(如：使用地址实际上是收邮件的地址)
·出版商将期刊出版范围定义得过于宽泛，如Journal of Education，目的是方便发表更多文章、从作者处赚取更多的论文处理费
·出版商出版的期刊横跨两个或两个以上通常不会放在一起的领域，如International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology
·出版商向作者收取论文处理费同时要求作者转让版权，或出版商要求作者在提交稿件时就进行版权转让
·出版商疏于网站运维，网站上存在死链接、明显的拼写错误及语法错误
·出版商在其网站上使用从开放网络获取的、未经版权所有者授权许可的图片
·出版商过度使用群发邮件功能(垃圾邮件)来征稿或者征集编委会成员
·出版商使用.gmail.com, yahoo.com等免费邮箱服务作为其工作邮箱
·出版商未提供文章许可使用声明，或表现出对业内熟知的开放获取期刊许可使用标准缺乏了解，或者提供的许可使用信息自相矛盾
·出版商缺乏对已发表的文章进行撤稿的政策，或在没有正式声明的情况下撤回文章（隐形撤销）; 出版商也未制定有关文章勘误的相关政策
·出版商不使用或滥用标准化的标识体系，如ISSN号、DOI号等
·出版商名字中使用如“网络”,“中心”,“协会”，“研究所”等类似词语，而它实际只是一个独立运营的商业出版机构，与名称不符
·出版商网站上广告太多，某种程度上已影响到网站导航和正常内容访问
·出版商没有加入行业协会，或故意不遵循行业标准
·出版商在其主页上添加某些知名会议和协会的链接，利用其它机构的声望和价值为自身(尤其是新出版商)增光
·出版商过分承诺快速发表和快速同行评议
·有证据显示出版商未进行真正意义上的同行评议
·出版商似乎只注重收取论文处理费，对稿件评审和读者服务投入精力不足
·出版商的商业化运作达到了贪婪的水平。个人可能有商业管理经验，网站上甚至可能有商业期刊，但所有者似乎对商业道德视而不见
·出版商或者期刊未被列入标准的期刊目录，也未能广泛地被编目到学校图书馆目录系统中
·出版商复制或极度模仿其他出版商的期刊刊名
·出版商在其网站上放置有关开放获取运动的相关描述文字，打造积极推动开放获取运动的人设
·期刊编委会成员从未在这本刊上发表过一篇文章
·期刊的发文作者几乎没有地域差异，这意味着这本刊已经成为该地区作者发表学术论文的简单通道
·出版商提供一个可选的“快速通道”收费服务，用于加速同行评议过程，很少甚至没有评审