题名

開放取用巨型期刊的發展、同儕審查制度與學術界的因應作法

并列篇名

Open Access Mega Journals: Development, Peer Review Mechanism, and Suggested Practices for the Academia

DOI

10.6120/JoEMLS.202211_59(3).0024.OR.AM

作者

潘璿安(Sophia Jui-An Pan)

关键词

高等教育 ； 巨型期刊 ； 開放取用 ； 同儕審查 ； 學術出版 ； Higher education ； Mega journals ； Open access ； Peer review ； Scholarly publication

期刊名称

教育資料與圖書館學

卷期/出版年月

59卷3期（2022 / 11 / 01）

页次

311 - 346

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

開放取用巨型期刊的興起為當代學術出版帶來重要變革。巨型期刊採用低選擇性的同儕審查標準，即審查階段僅評估研究的合理性與倫理，不再重視新穎性、重要性與應用性。學術界因此憂心這種低門檻的刊登作法，將使得出版著作的品質良莠不齊，甚至成為低品質研究的「傾倒場」。鑒於關於巨型期刊的中文文獻甚少，本研究以文獻探討的方式，剖析巨型期刊對學術界所帶來的影響。本文首先回顧巨型期刊的起源，及其與一般同儕審查期刊間的主要差異；文中也呈現國際學術界面對巨型期刊時的多元觀點與討論議題。最後，本文以研究誠信的角度，提出學術界各利益關係人得因應巨型期刊盛行的實務作法。希冀本研究成果能作為高等教育界之參考。
英文摘要

The rise of open access mega journals has significantly changed the modern academic publishing industry. Mega journals adopt low-selective peer review standards, whereby peer reviewers only evaluate the soundness and ethics of research and no longer pay much attention to novelty, importance, and applicability. The academic community is concerned that this will make the quality of published works vary excessively and even make mega journals become a "dumping ground" for low-quality research. Given the lack of Chinese-language literature on mega journals, this study applies a literature review method to analyze the impact of mega journals on academia. This article first reviews the origins of mega journals and the main differences between them and traditional peer-reviewed journals; the paper also explicates the diverse viewpoints and discussions on mega journals in the international scientific communities. Finally, from the perspective of research integrity, this paper proposes practical guidance that research stakeholders might follow to respond to the prevalence of mega journals. It is hoped that the results of this research can serve as a reference for the higher education community in Taiwan.
主题分类 人文學 > 圖書資訊學
参考文献
  1. 林家鈺, Chia-Yu,林雯瑤, Wen-Yau Cathy(2021)。醫學領域開放取用期刊文章處理費之研究。圖書資訊學刊，19(2)，173-203。
    連結：
  2. 黃慕萱, Mu-Hsuan,嚴竹蓮, Chu-Lien(2016)。同儕審查的起源、研究現況與展望。圖書資訊學刊，14(1)，41-85。
    連結：
  3. 專科以上學校教師資格審定辦法（2022年8月17日）。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=h0030024【Regulations Governing Accreditation of Teacher Qualifications at Junior Colleges and Institutions of Higher Education. (2022, August 17). https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=h0030024 (in Chinese)】
  4. Baker, E.,Vincent, S.(2019).A deafening silence: A lack of data and reproducibility in published bioacoustics research?.Biodiversity Data Journal,7,e36783.
  5. Baker, M.(2016).1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.Nature,533(7604),452-454.
  6. Beall, J.(2013).Five predatory mega-journals: A review.The Charleston Advisor,14(4),20-25.
  7. Binfield, P. (2013, October 23). Open access megajournals— Have they changed everything? Tohatoha Aotearoa Commons. https://www.tohatoha.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything/
  8. Björk, B.-C.(2018).Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017.PeerJ,6,e4357.
  9. Björk, B.-C.(2015).Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?.PeerJ,3,e981.
  10. Björk, B.-C.,Catani, P.(2016).Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?.Learned Publishing,29(1),9-12.
  11. BMJ Open. (2022b). Instructions for reviewers. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/pages/reviewerguidelines/
  12. BMJ Open. (2022a). About. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/pages/about/
  13. Brainard, J.(2019).Open-access megajournals lose momentum.Science,365(6458),1067.
  14. Buriak, J. M.(2015).Mega-journals and peer review: Can quality and standards survive?.Chemistry of Materials,27(7),2243.
  15. Chenette, E. (2021, November 26). Fifteen years of PLOS ONE. EveryONE Blog. https://everyone.plos.org/2021/11/26/fifteen-years-of-plos-one/
  16. Clarivate. (2022). 2021 Journal citation reports. https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr/home
  17. Dinis-Oliveira, R. J.(2022).Open-access mega-journals in health and life sciences: What every researcher needs to know about this publishing model.Current Drug Research Reviews,14(1),3-5.
  18. Else, H.(2021).Open-access publisher PLOS pushes to extend clout beyond biomedicine.Nature,593,489-490.
  19. IEEE Access. (2022a). Learn more about IEEE Access. https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/about-ieee-access/learn-more-about-ieee-access/
  20. IEEE Access. (2022b). Stages of peer review. https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/guide-for-authors/stages-of-peer-review/
  21. Kamat, P. V.,Schatz, G. C.(2015).Know the difference: Scientific publications versus scientific reports.Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters,6(5),858-859.
  22. Kincaid, E. (2022b, June 28). The Lancet more than doubles its impact factor, eclipsing NEJM for the first time ever. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/06/28/the-lancet-more-than-doubles-its-impact-factor-eclipsing-nejm-for-the-first-time-ever/
  23. Kincaid, E. (2022a, August 3). Exclusive: PLOS ONE to retract more than 100 papers for manipulated peer review. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/08/03/exclusive-plos-one-to-retract-more-than-100-papers-for-manipulated-peer-review/?fbclid=IwAR1NXqyKiHQC03eKzTM-OTjr1EYB70bBpk0It-t4LjkQ5GJx5GlctiS6YyQ&fs=e&s=cl
  24. Klein, R. A.,Vianello, M.,Hasselman, F.,Adams, B. G.,Adams, R. B., Jr.,Alper, S.,Aveyard, M.,Axt, J. R.,Babalola, M. T.,Bahník, Š.,Batra, R.,Berkics, M.,Bernstein, M. J.,Berry, D. R.,Bialobrzeska, O.,Binan, Evans D.,Bocian, K.,Brandt, M. J.,Busching, R.,Nosek, B. A.(2018).Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings.Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,1(4),443-490.
  25. MacCallum, C. J.(2006).ONE for all: The next step for PLoS.PLOS Biology,4(11),e401.
  26. Morton, L. (2022, July 12). 5 open science practices that improve reproducibility & support trust in science. The Official PLOS Blog. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2022/07/reproducibility/
  27. Nature(2022).Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial.Nature,578,8.
  28. Patterson, M. (2009, July 13). PLoS journals – Measuring impact where it matters. The Official PLOS Blog. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2009/07/plos-journals-measuring-impact-where-it-matters/
  29. Pinfield, S. (2016a, October 13). Mega-journals: The future, a stepping stone to it or a leap into the abyss? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/mega-journals-future-stepping-stone-it-or-leap-abyss
  30. Pinfield, S.(2016).Open-access mega-journals and the future of scholarly communication.Research Libraries UK Conference 2016,London, United Kingdom:
  31. PLoS ONE. (2022b). Guidelines for reviewers. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines
  32. PLoS ONE. (2022a). Editorial board. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/editorial-board
  33. PLoS ONE. (2022d). Journal information. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
  34. PLoS ONE. (2022c). Join the editorial board. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/join-editorial-board
  35. Quaderi, N. (2022, July 16). Announcing changes to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports. Clarivate Blog. https://clarivate.com/blog/clarivate-announces-changes-to-the-2023-journal-citation-reports-release/?fbclid=IwAR0-1jlFUSUwufWbum6yfdlxt6sA3N2uVUvCTBmaN1pMzGcL9Lw_xBchNN4
  36. SAGE Open. (2022). Aims and scope. https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/SGO
  37. Scientific Reports. (2022b). Guidelines for referees. https://www.nature.com/srep/guide-to-referees
  38. Scientific Reports. (2022a). About scientific reports. https://www.nature.com/srep/about
  39. Shin, E.-J.(2017).Can the growth of mega-journals affect authors’ choice of journal?.Serials Review,43(2),137-146.
  40. Spezi, V.,Wakeling, S.,Pinfield, S.,Creaser, C.,Fry, J.,Willett, P.(2017).Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review.Journal of Documentation,73(2),263-283.
  41. Spezi, V.,Wakeling, S.,Pinfield, S.,Fry, J.,Creaser, C.,Willett, P.(2018).“Let the community decide”?: The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals.Journal of Documentation,74(1),137-161.
  42. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.,Al-Khatib, A.,Dobránszki, J.(2017).Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: Identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior.Science and Engineering Ethics,23,1213-1226.
  43. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.,Tsigaris, P.,Al-Khatib, A.(2019).Open access mega-journals: Quality, economics and post-publication peer review infrastructure.Publishing Research Quarterly,35,418-435.
  44. The BMJ. (2022b). Resources for reviewers. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resourcesreviewers
  45. The BMJ. (2022a). Publishing model. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/publishing-model
  46. The Embassy Editorial Team, Lechner, I., Hosseini, M., Mezinska, S., Perković Paloš, A., & Amin, E. (2022, April 19). Post-publication peer review. The Embassy of Good Science.https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173
  47. Van Aert, R. C.,Wicherts, J. M.,Van Assen, M. A.(2019).Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis.PLoS ONE,14(4),e0215052.
  48. Vines, T. (2013, March 27). How rigorous is the post-publication review process at F1000 Research? Scholarly Kitchen Blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/03/27/how-rigorous-is-the-post-publication-review-process-at-f1000-research/
  49. Wakeling, S.,Creaser, C.,Pinfield, S.,Fry, J.,Spezi, V.,Willett, P.,Paramita, M.(2019).Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,70(7),754-768.
  50. Wakeling, S.,Spezi, V.,Creaser, C.,Fry, J.,Pinfield, S.,Willett, P.(2017).Open access mega journals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities).Learned Publishing,30(4),313-322.
  51. Wakeling, S.,Spezi, V.,Fry, J.,Creaser, C.,Pinfield, S.,Willett, P.(2019).Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication.Journal of Documentation,75(1),120-139.
  52. Wakeling, S.,Spezi, V.,Fry, J.,Creaser, C.,Pinfield, S.,Willett, P.(2017).Open access mega journals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations).Learned Publishing,30(4),301-311.
  53. Wakeling, S.,Willett, P.,Creaser, C.,Fry, J.,Pinfield, S.,Spezi, V.(2016).Open-access megajournals: A bibliometric profile.PLoS ONE,11(11),e0165359.
  54. Wellen, R.(2013).Open access, megajournals, and MOOCs: On the political economy of academic unbundling.SAGE Open,3(4),1-16.
  55. Wicherts, J. M.(2016).Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals.PLoS ONE,11(1),e0147913.
  56. 周倩（2020）。學術界的同儕審查（peer review）制度與審查者（reviewer）的責任。研究誠信電子報，37，1-12。https://www.nstc.gov.tw/nstc/attachments/5edfd55f-915e4996-8e01-eb3b8b67d7b0? 【Chou, Chien (2020). Xueshujie de tongchai shencha (peer review) zhidu yu shenchazhe (reviewer) de zeren. Yanjiu Chengxin Dianzibao, 37, 1-12. https://www.nstc.gov.tw/nstc/attachments/5edfd55f-915e-4996-8e01-eb3b8b67d7b0?(in Chinese)】
  57. 林口長庚圖書館（2022）。Mega journal。https://www1.cgmh.org.tw/library/hold/mj.htm 【Chang Gung Memorial Linkou Medical Library. (2022). Mega journal. https://www1.cgmh.org.tw/library/hold/mj.htm (in Chinese)】
  58. 林奇秀, Chi-Shiou(2022)。從掠奪型期刊到巨型期刊：對OA出版與學術生態的省思。人文與社會科學簡訊，23(4)，26-31。
  59. 國立臺灣大學醫學院研究發展分處（2022）。有關醫學院「加強實質審查期刊」資訊，供參考。http://rd.mc.ntu.edu.tw/bomrd/ntu2/news_txt.asp?pno=5512 【Branch Office of Research and Development, National Taiwan University College of Medicine. (2022). Youguan yixueyuan “jiaqiang shizhi shencha qikan” zixun, gong cankao. http://rd.mc.ntu.edu.tw/bomrd/ntu2/news_txt.asp?pno=5512 (in Chinese)】
  60. 馮靖惠（2022b年3月26日）。投稿拚升等／審查快、採用多就是劣質掠奪性期刊？台大教授兩派交鋒。聯合報。https://vip.udn.com/vip/story/121160/6190703【Feng, Jing-Hui (2022b, March 26). Tougao pin shengdeng/shencha kuai, caiyong duo jiu shi liezhi lueduoxing qikan? Taida jiaoshou liangpai jiaofeng. United Daily News. https://vip.udn.com/vip/story/121160/6193129 (in Chinese)】
  61. 馮靖惠（2022a年3月26日）。掠奪性期刊定義不明難杜絕因為官方不敢當壞人。聯合報。https://vip.udn.com/vip/story/121160/6193129【Feng, Jing-Hui (2022a, March 26). Lueduoxing qikan dingyi buming nan dujue, yinwei guanfang bugan dang huairen. United Daily News. https://vip.udn.com/vip/story/121160/6193129 (in Chinese)】
  62. 臺灣研究誠信守則起草委員會=Taiwan Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Drafting Committee(2020).臺灣研究誠信守則.台灣聯合大學系統出版=University System of Taiwan.
  63. 潘璿安（2022）。善用期刊網站的資訊透明度預防掠奪性刊物。研究誠信電子報，49，2-11。https://www.nstc.gov.tw/nstc/attachments/d60b5348-a1bc-44e9-8d90-9bf4b3fa24ca? 【Pan, Sophia Jui-An (2022). Shanyong qikan wangzhan de zixun toumingdu yufang lueduoxing kanwu. Yanjiu Chengxin Dianzibao, 49, 2-11. https://www.nstc.gov.tw/nstc/attachments/d60b5348-a1bc-44e9-8d90-9bf4b3fa24ca? (in Chinese)】
  64. 蔡依橙（2022年4月24日）。審查時不考慮科學重要性的 OA期刊，可以嗎？ https://i-chentsai.innovarad.tw/2022/04/review_scientific_value.html【Tsai, I-Chen (2022, April 24). Shencha shi bu kaolu kexue zhongyaoxing de OA qikan, keyi ma? https://i-chentsai.innovarad.tw/2022/04/review_scientific_value.html (in Chinese)】
  65. 蔡孟利, Meng-Li(2022)。學術出版業「破」與「立」的拉扯—兼論Mega Journal的解套之道。科學月刊，485
  66. 蔡孟利（2022a年7月19日）。當暴衝式「影響係數」來襲，學術獎勵和升等標準如何因應？報導者。https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-journal-impact-factor【Tsai, Meng-Li (2022a, July 19). Dang baochongshi “yingxiang xishu” laixi, xueshu jiangli he shengdeng biaozhun ruhe yinying? The Reporter, https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-journalimpact-factor (in Chinese)】
print cancel