Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology
Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1213/ane.0000000000003803
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Giarratano, Antonino
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cortegiani, Andrea;Longhini, Federico;Giarratano, Antonino
掠夺性出版是一种剥削性的、欺诈性的开放获取出版模式，它在合法出版业务的幌子下收取费用，而实际上并没有提供与合法期刊相关的编辑服务。本研究的目的是分析麻醉及相关专科（重症监护、危重及呼吸医学、疼痛医学和急诊）的这一现象。两位作者独立地调查了一个免费获取的、不断更新的原始Beall列表，这些列表包括潜在的、可能的或可能的掠夺性出版商和独立期刊。我们确定了来自83家出版商的212种期刊，发表的文章总数为12871篇。据报道，大多数出版商都在美国。在43%的案例中（37/84），在使用谷歌地图的三维视图检查后，报告的位置被判定为“不可靠”。PubMed收录了6本期刊。虽然有6种期刊被宣布在开放获取期刊目录中被索引，但实际上没有一种是注册的。物品处理费中位数为634.5美元（四分位数区间为275-1005美元）。一些期刊在出版伦理委员会和国际医学期刊编辑委员会注册和谷歌Scholar中报告了错误的索引/注册。只有32%（67/212）报告了主编的姓名。只有24%的案例报告了伦理/科学不端行为规则（50/212）。总之，潜在的或可能的掠夺性开放获取出版商和期刊广泛存在于麻醉学和相关专业的广泛领域。研究人员在向开放获取期刊投稿时应该仔细检查期刊的报告信息，包括地点、编辑委员会、索引和伦理规则。
Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.