A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102236
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Kee, Kerk F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koerber, Amy;Starkey, Jesse C.;Kee, Kerk F.
掠夺性的期刊和出版商是学术出版竞技场中越来越令人担忧的问题。作为解决这一日益重要的问题的一种尝试，许多个人、协会和公司已经开始策划期刊观察名单或期刊安全名单。本研究使用定性内容分析来探讨学术出版期刊观察名单和安全名单所述的纳入/排除标准，以更好地了解这些名单的内容，以及继续围绕掠夺性出版现象的更大争议。通过对其发表的使命声明和纳入/排除标准进行检查，分析了4个观察列表和10个安全列表。出现的显著差异包括图书管理员杰弗里·比尔（Jeffrey Beall）在观察名单中的剩余影响力，以及明确否认他对安全名单的方法，沿着越来越多的人认识到，“名单”方法可能无法完全解决掠夺性出版的系统性方面，超越了个人作者的道德决策机构。
Predatory journals and publishers are a growing concern in the scholarly publishing arena. As one type of attempt to address this increasingly important issue, numerous individuals, associations, and companies have begun curating journal watchlists or journal safelists. This study uses a qualitative content analysis to explore the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated by scholarly publishing journal watchlists and safelists to better understand the content of these lists, as well as the larger controversies that continue to surround the phenomenon that has come to be known as predatory publishing. Four watchlists and ten safelists were analyzed through an ex-amination of their published mission statements and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Notable differences that emerged include the remaining influence of librarian Jeffrey Beall in the watchlists, and the explicit disavowal of his methods for the safelists, along with a growing recognition that the "list" approach may not fully address systemic aspects of predatory publishing that go beyond the individual author's ethical decision-making agency.