《Nature》雜志專訪了預(yù)警期刊負(fù)責(zé)人楊立英研究員，向全球科學(xué)家報(bào)道了預(yù)警期刊的最新變化。

　　《中國(guó)有一份涉嫌期刊名單，最新已更新》一文深入探討了這份全球影響深遠(yuǎn)的預(yù)警期刊名單的由來(lái)、研制過(guò)程，并著重關(guān)注了今年名單的新變化——對(duì)于具有“引用操縱”等不端行為的期刊以及與“國(guó)際傳播作用”背道而馳的期刊進(jìn)行了明確標(biāo)記。

　　以下是采訪主要內(nèi)容的節(jié)選：

　　【名單背后的機(jī)制】

　　我們首先收集來(lái)自中國(guó)研究人員和管理者的反饋，并跟蹤全球關(guān)于新形式學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的討論，以確定要關(guān)注的問(wèn)題。一月份，我們分析了來(lái)自倫敦Clarivate出版分析公司提供的Web of Science科學(xué)引文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)的原始數(shù)據(jù)，并準(zhǔn)備了初步的期刊名單。我們與相關(guān)出版社分享這份名單，并解釋他們的期刊為何可能被列入名單。

　　We start by collecting feedback from Chinese researchers and administrators, and we follow global discussions on new forms of misconduct to determine the problems to focus on. In January, we analyse raw data from the science-citation database Web of Science, provided by the publishing-analytics firm Clarivate, based in London, and prepare a preliminary list of journals. We share this with relevant publishers, and explain why their journals could end up on the list.

　　Sometimes publishers give us feedback and make a case against including their journal. If their response is reasonable, we will remove it. We appreciate suggestions to improve our work. We never see the journal list as a perfect one. This year, discussions with publishers cut the list from around 50 journals down to 24.

　　【預(yù)警標(biāo)記透明化，預(yù)警類別動(dòng)態(tài)更新，提供負(fù)責(zé)任的科學(xué)參考】

　　過(guò)去幾年，期刊被劃分為高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、中風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。今年，我們沒(méi)有報(bào)告風(fēng)險(xiǎn)水平，因?yàn)槲覀儎h除了低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類別，同時(shí)我們也意識(shí)到中國(guó)研究人員會(huì)忽略風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分類，直接避開(kāi)名單上的期刊。因此，我們改為提供期刊被列入名單的具體原因的解釋。

　　在過(guò)去的幾年中，我們包括了出版數(shù)量迅速增長(zhǎng)的期刊。例如，如果一本期刊一年發(fā)表了1000篇文章，下一年發(fā)表了5000篇，我們最初的邏輯是，這些期刊很難維持其質(zhì)量控制程序。今年我們移除了這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。開(kāi)放獲取模式的興起意味著期刊有可能收到大量稿件，因此迅速增加文章數(shù)量。我們不希望干擾市場(chǎng)自然過(guò)程。

　　In previous years, journals were categorized as being high, medium or low risk. This year, we didn’t report risk levels because we removed the low risk category, and we also realized that Chinese researchers ignore the risk categories and simply avoid journals on the list altogether. Instead, we provided an explanation of why the journal is on the list.

　　In previous years, we included journals with publication numbers that increased very rapidly. For example, if a journal published 1,000 articles one year and then 5,000 the next year, our initial logic was that it would be hard for these journals to maintain their quality-control procedures. We have removed this criterion this year. The shift towards open access has meant that it is possible for journals to receive a large number of manuscripts, and therefore rapidly increase their article numbers. We don’t want to disturb this natural process decided by the market.

　　【瞄準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題——標(biāo)記出引用模式異常的期刊】

　　我們注意到全球科研界一直在討論此問(wèn)題。我們很難斷定問(wèn)題是由期刊引起還是由作者自身引起的。有時(shí)，作者團(tuán)體會(huì)相互同意進(jìn)行引用操縱，或使用產(chǎn)生虛假研究論文的論文工廠。我們通過(guò)科睿唯安提供的引文數(shù)據(jù)查找這些期刊，例如，那些稿件引用高度偏向于一期的期刊或由少數(shù)研究人員撰寫(xiě)的文章。明年，我們計(jì)劃調(diào)查新形式的引用操縱問(wèn)題。

　　We noticed that there has been a lot of discussion on the subject among researchers around the world. It’s hard for us to say whether the problem comes from the journals or from the authors themselves. Sometimes groups of authors agree to this citation manipulation mutually, or they use paper mills, which produce fake research papers. We identify these journals by looking for trends in citation data provided by Clarivate — for example, journals in which manuscript references are highly skewed to one journal issue or articles authored by a few researchers. Next year, we plan to investigate new forms of citation manipulation.

　　Our work seems to have an impact on publishers. Many publishers have thanked us for alerting them to the issues in their journals, and some have initiated their own investigations. One example from this year, is the open-access publisher MDPI, based in Basel, Switzerland, whom we informed that four of its journals would be included in our list because of citation manipulation. Perhaps it is unrelated, but on 13 February, MDPI sent out a notice that it was looking into potential reviewer misconduct involving unethical citation practices in 23 of its journals.

　　【瞄準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題——為何擔(dān)憂存在“畸形”中國(guó)論文比例的期刊】

　　一個(gè)國(guó)家的作者比例從來(lái)不是我們判斷一個(gè)期刊是否列入名單的獨(dú)立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些期刊發(fā)表——有時(shí)幾乎全部——來(lái)自中國(guó)研究人員的文章，收取不合理高昂的文章處理費(fèi)，而且被引用頻次很低。從中國(guó)的角度來(lái)看，這是一個(gè)值得關(guān)注的問(wèn)題，因?yàn)槲覀兪且粋€(gè)發(fā)展中國(guó)家，希望充分利用我們的科研經(jīng)費(fèi)，在真正的國(guó)際期刊上發(fā)表文章，為全球科學(xué)做出貢獻(xiàn)。如果科學(xué)家將文章發(fā)表在幾乎全部來(lái)自中國(guó)研究人員的期刊上，我們的管理者將建議將該工作提交到本地期刊。這樣，中國(guó)的研究人員可以快速閱讀和學(xué)習(xí)，而不需要支付那么多費(fèi)用。這是中國(guó)科研界近年來(lái)面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。

　　This is not a criterion we use on its own. These journals publish — sometimes almost exclusively — articles by Chinese researchers, charge unreasonably high article processing fees and have a low citation impact. From a Chinese perspective, this is a concern because we are a developing country and want to make good use of our research funding to publish our work in truly international journals to contribute to global science. If scientists publish in journals where almost all the manuscripts come from Chinese researchers, our administrators will suggest that instead the work should be submitted to a local journal. That way, Chinese researchers can read it and learn from it quickly and don’t need to pay so much to publish it. This is a challenge that the Chinese research community has been confronting in recent years.

　　【善用數(shù)據(jù)與工具】

　　我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)持續(xù)關(guān)注并收集各類社交媒體上的信息，以及諸如PubPeer等網(wǎng)站以及研究誠(chéng)信博客For Better Science上的信息。目前我們不會(huì)自行進(jìn)行圖像或文本檢查，但以后可能會(huì)開(kāi)始進(jìn)行。我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)還創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)名為Amend的在線數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，記錄了一些問(wèn)題文章，供研究人員查詢。我們收集文章撤稿信息、關(guān)注通知、更正和在社交媒體上被標(biāo)記的文章。

　　My team collects information posted on social media as well as websites such as PubPeer, where users discuss published articles, and the research-integrity blog For Better Science. We currently don’t do the image or text checks ourselves, but we might start to do so later.

　　My team has also created an online database of questionable articles called Amend, which researchers can access. We collect information on article retractions, notices of concern, corrections and articles that have been flagged on social media.

　　推薦閱讀：SSCI 4區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)類非預(yù)警期刊

如果您現(xiàn)在遇到期刊選擇、論文內(nèi)容改善、論文投稿周期長(zhǎng)、難錄用、多次退修、多次被拒等問(wèn)題，可以告訴學(xué)術(shù)顧問(wèn)，解答疑問(wèn)同時(shí)給出解決方案 。