정보관리학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society for information Management)

  • 제37권4호
  • /
  • Pages.109-130
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1013-0799(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-2073(eISSN)
한국정보관리학회 (Korean Society for Information Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

부실 의심 학술지 식별을 위한 체크리스트 개발 연구: 해외 출판 학술지를 중심으로

A Study on the Development of Checklist for Identifying the Predatory Journals Published Abroad

  • 이은지 (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터) ;
  • 김혜선 (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터) ;
  • 남은경 (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터) ;
  • 김완종 (한국과학기술정보연구원 학술정보공유센터)
  • 투고 : 2020.11.23
  • 심사 : 2020.12.15
  • 발행 : 2020.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 논문의 투고 시점부터 출판에 이르는 과정까지 부실하게 운영되는 것으로 의심되는 학술지가 지닌 특징을 식별할 수 있는 체크리스트를 개발하는 것이다. 이에, 해외 사례조사와 전문가 의견 수렴 등을 통해 총 3개의 우선순위를 기준으로 17개의 체크리스트 문항을 개발하였다. 개발된 체크리스트의 검증을 위해 Beall's List에 포함된 100종의 학술지를 무작위로 추출하여 분석한 결과, 96종의 학술지가 부실로 의심되는 특징을 가지고 있었고, 4종은 특이사항이 없는 학술지로 식별되었다. 향후 더욱 광범위한 연구 분야에서 발간되는 학술지에 대한 사례조사와 후속 연구를 통해 본 연구에서 개발된 17개 문항을 지속적으로 수정 보완해야 할 것이다.

This study aims to develop a checklist that could identify the characteristics of predatory journals suspected of being poorly operated from the time of submission to publication. Accordingly 17 checklist questions were developed based on 3 priorities through overseas case studies and expert opinions. To verify the developed checklist, 100 journals included in Beall's list were randomly extracted and analyzed. As a result, 96 journals had features that were suspected to be questionable, there were not found in the 4 journals. A further case study and follow-up study of journals published in a broader field of research will require continued revision and supplementation of the 17 questions developed in this study.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lee, H., Kim, H., Kim, S., Chun, K., & Shin, J. (2019). Features and preventive measures of predatory publishing. NRF ISSUE REPORT, 1, 1-29.
  2. Seo, T., & Jung, Y. (2018). Create a transparent academic publishing ecosystem: The problems and solutions of predatory publication. KISTI ISSUE BRIEF, 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22810/2018KIB001
  3. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179-179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
  4. Beall, J. (2013a). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC, 11(2), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525
  5. Beall, J. (2013b). Index copernicus has no value. scholarly open access. Archived from the original on 2014-04-03. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  6. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrived from https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
  7. Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com.
  8. Beaubien, S., & Eckard, M. (2014). Addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1133. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1133
  9. Blas, N., Rele, S., & Kennedy, M. R. (2019). The development of the journal evaluation tool to evaluate the credibility of publication venues. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 7(1), eP2250. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2250
  10. Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 525(7575), 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f
  11. Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing It!. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.15171/apb.2016.001
  12. Dadkhah, M., & Borchardt, G. (2016). Hijacked journals: An emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 36(6), 739-741. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw026
  13. DOAJ. Retrieved from https://www.doaj.org/
  14. Frandsen, T. (2019). How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1230
  15. Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031
  16. Radom, R., Feltner-Reichert, M., & Stringer-Stanback, K. (2012). SPEC Kit 332: Organization of scholarly communication services. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.29242/spec.332
  17. Regier, R. (2018). The institutionalized racism of scholarly publishing. Retrieved from https://awayofhappening.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-institutionalized-racism-of-scholarly-publishing/
  18. Scudellari, M. (2015). "[T]hese things can happen in every lab: Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings." Retraction Watch. Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/02/mutant-plant-paper-uprooted-after-authors-cor rect-their-own-findings/
  19. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., ... & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
  20. Shen, C., & Bjork, B. (2015). 'Predatory' open acceess: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
  21. Think. Check. Submit. Retrieved from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/