首页> 外文OA文献 >Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: A comparison of journals in version VI of the VABB-SHW with Beall's list and DOAJ
【2h】

Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: A comparison of journals in version VI of the VABB-SHW with Beall's list and DOAJ

机译:基于绩效的筹资模式中的掠夺性开放获取期刊:VABB-SHW第六版中的期刊与Beall的清单和DOAJ的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The current report presents the results of this monitoring exercise in view of VABB-SHW version VI, which will contain publications from the time period 2005–2014. This report provides a detailed comparison of (1) the journals published by publishers listed on Beall’s list of POA publishers and the journals on Beall’s list of stand-alone journals as of 5 November 2015 with (2) the VABB-SHW list of journals as submitted to the GP in July 2015. Furthermore, we also provide details on each potentially predatory journal regarding its inclusion in Web of Science (WoS) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and we list the publishers that are, according to Beall’s list, not to be considered predatory open access anymore. This report is intended to facilitate the GP’s decision making. More generally, the report may raise awareness on the prevalence of predatory open access publishing in the social sciences and humanities in Flanders.A more relaxed approach might consist of taking the whitelisting of a journal in DOAJ as evidence of peer review and hence classify these journals as peer reviewed. However, this approach would raise the question on how the status of journals in other systems (e.g. Italian ANVUR, ERIH) will be handled.
机译:根据VABB-SHW第六版,本报告介绍了此项监测工作的结果,其中将包含2005-2014年期间的出版物。本报告详细比较了(1)截至2015年11月5日Beall的POA出版商列表上列出的出版商出版的期刊和Beall的独立期刊列表上的期刊,以及(2)VABB-SHW的期刊列表为在2015年7月提交给GP。此外,根据Beall的说法,我们还提供了有关每种潜在掠夺性期刊的详细信息,包括其纳入Web of Science(WoS)和开放获取期刊目录(DOAJ)的情况。列表,不再被视为掠夺性开放访问。该报告旨在促进GP的决策。更普遍地说,该报告可能会提高人们对法兰德斯社会科学和人文科学中掠夺性开放获取的普遍性的认识。一种更为宽松的方法可能包括将DOAJ中一本期刊的白名单作为同行评审的证据,从而对这些期刊进行分类作为同行评审。但是,这种方法将引发一个问题,即如何处理其他系统(例如,意大利ANVUR,ERIH)中期刊的状态。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号