当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology ( IF 3.5 ) Pub Date : 2020-02-27 , DOI: 10.1002/asi.24339
Kyle Siler 1
Affiliation  

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer‐review systems and business models, commonly dubbed “predatory publishing.” Empirical analysis of Cabellʼs Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, “gray” journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between—if not aligning—professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high‐status journals with value and pricing power, while low‐status OA journals face “predatory” incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit‐seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower‐status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate.

中文翻译:

界定掠夺性出版的范围:学术合法性的经济和制度来源

开放获取 (OA) 出版的出现改变了学术利益相关者和出版商的动机和机会。这些变化产生了各种新的经济和学术领域,包括同行评审系统和商业模式有问题的期刊,通常被称为“掠夺性出版”。对卡贝尔期刊黑名单的实证分析揭示了掠夺性出版的类型和程度的巨大差异。虽然一些被列入黑名单的出版商出版的期刊严重违反了学术规范,但“灰色”期刊和出版商在掠夺性和合法性之间占据了边缘或模糊的位置。学术出版中的掠夺不是简单的二元现象,而应被视为具有不同类型和程度的非法性的光谱。掠夺的概念基于对学术和经济合法性的重叠评估。高机构地位通过减少专业和市场机构逻辑之间的冲突(如果不是一致的话)使出版商受益,这些逻辑更可能在低端市场的利基市场发生冲突并造成非法问题。高拒绝率赋予高地位期刊价值和定价权,而低地位 OA 期刊面临“掠夺性”激励,通过低选择性来优化收入。地位影响学术出版中谋利的社会接受度,使地位较低的出版商容易被视为非法出版商并被污名化。高机构地位通过减少专业和市场机构逻辑之间的冲突(如果不是一致的话)使出版商受益,这些逻辑更可能在低端市场的利基市场发生冲突并造成非法问题。高拒绝率赋予高地位期刊价值和定价权,而低地位 OA 期刊面临“掠夺性”激励,通过低选择性优化收入。地位影响学术出版中谋利的社会接受度,使地位较低的出版商容易被视为非法出版商并被污名化。高机构地位通过减少专业和市场机构逻辑之间的冲突(如果不是一致的话)使出版商受益,这些逻辑更可能在低端市场的利基市场发生冲突并造成非法问题。高拒绝率赋予高地位期刊价值和定价权,而低地位 OA 期刊面临“掠夺性”激励,通过低选择性优化收入。地位影响学术出版中谋利的社会接受度,使地位较低的出版商容易被视为非法出版商并被污名化。
更新日期:2020-02-27
down
wechat
bug