DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals This is a postprint published in Publications, but revisions in response to comments are still ongoing.: Version history Please cite this article as: Yamada, Y. (2021). How to protect the credibility of articles published in predatory journals. Publications, 9(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004. How to protect the credibility of articles published in predatory journals Yuki Yamada Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Japan Corresponding author: Yuki Yamada, Associate Professor. Address: Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] Tel and Fax: +81-92-802-5837 1 Abstract Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, pre-submission peer-review, open peer-review, request for additional reviewers, post-publication peer review, open recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields, the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science. Keywords: publication bias; predatory journals/publishing, research personnel; quality control; periodicals; peer review, research; inexperienced researchers; ethical publishing 2 1. Introduction For researchers, publishing a peer-reviewed research paper in an academic journal is critical to their professional life—often referred to in academia as “publish-or-perish.” However, submitting a manuscript to a journal does not necessarily lead to publication. A study author may equate failure to publish to their “death” as a researcher. The corresponding pressure on academic professionals to be published create factors such as publication bias (i.e., a bias in which only manuscripts with favorable and generally positive results for the author are published) [1–2], and questionable research practices (QRPs) [3–4] that distort the reliability of scientific endeavor [5]. Reputable journals are likely to be highly selective in the submissions they select for publication: At times, manuscripts are rejected simply because they are outside the scope of the journals. Moreover, the bandwidth of the peer-review “filter” varies from journal to journal. If a particular journal’s peer-review filter is less rigorous, then the natural progression for researchers whose careers may suffer if their work is not published is to improve their chances by submitting their articles to such a journal. At the extreme are journals that have low or no vetting of content. It is under this set of circumstances that business opportunities arise. Such so-called predatory journals falsely claim to provide peer- review or provide only very superficial peer review (although there are some predatory journals that provide peer review of unknown quality [6]), accepting many papers that might not pass peer review by reputable journals. In fact, about one-third of the authors of predatory journals had been previously rejected and, of that group, many (43%) had been rejected twice [6]. In this way, predatory journals can profit from collecting publication fees from many researchers seeking to avoid “dying” within their field. Peer review is minimal or 3 absent in these journals, but the manuscript is always accepted for publication. Acceptance rates have been estimated at 80–100%, depending on the specific journal [7]). Since unrefereed papers are published as refereed papers, publication in such journals is often called “resumé padding,” [8] and the studies are sometimes deemed “junk science” [9]. Furthermore, because publishing fees paid to predatory journals may be paid by public research funds, predatory publishing has been criticized [8] and is regarded as unethical [10] for wasting taxpayer money and other economic resources of stakeholders. In some cases, a researcher may work hard to prepare a high-quality manuscript, but if they are inexperienced, they might not be well-informed about predatory publishing, especially in universities/faculties with insufficient and inadequate supervision and mentoring [11]. These authors may be unable to choose legitimate journals, and as a result, they unintentionally submit the paper they have prepared and heavily invested in to a predatory journal (novice and other authors can benefit from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/, which helps empower authors to make informed choices for publication and avoid predatory publishers). The authors may subsequently realize that the journal to which they submitted their work is predatory, but they could be left at a loss, as predatory journals often do not readily accept an author’s request for withdrawal/retraction of articles [12]. If they do, they never refund the publication fees [13]. Rather, it is common to ask for a “withdrawal fee” of several hundred dollars, something that Beall described as holding the manuscript “hostage” until the ransom is paid [14]. This difficult issue of withdrawal and refund has been discussed by Culley and others [15]. Moreover, authors may worry that their reputation will suffer if other researchers were to find out that they had published a paper in a predatory journal. In fact, some 4 institutions negatively assess researchers who have published in certain journals [16]. My institution (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) explicitly discourages faculty and staff from submitting to predatory journals. One researcher reportedly removed the history of those papers published in predatory journals from their CV. The author of this article feels1 that this action may be considered a QRP, as it is a type of research achievement falsification2. In general, if a job seeker does not write about the loss of social and academic reputation on a résumé, it is résumé fraud. Rather than simply hiding a disadvantageous paper, efforts should be made to withdraw or improve its credibility, as it is already published. On the other hand, there are authors who intentionally publish in predatory journals, willingly using such journals for their self-interest (academic promotion, academic incentive, fear of job loss, or for grant applications) [17]. The worrying problem in academia is how easily such complicity can be achieved. As a result of our existing quantity-driven bibliometric culture, assessors may gloss over publications in predatory journals. Psychological discussions about the motivational aspects of such authors and institutional discussions, including penalties, are outside the scope of this paper, but they are important 1 One reviewer commented on this topic as follows. “If many authors publish in a predatory journal by accident, then there is no intentional research misconduct. I would be far less forceful about this statement. Some institutions require authors to remove predatory publications from their CV (e.g. my institution). I think the answer to this problem is unclear and may be an individual judgment call. It is not black and white.” I can understand this sentiment. Although some researchers may be required to obey an institution's order to erase the history of their papers in predatory journals, I believe that this situation should eventually be resolved by making everything public. However, as this reviewer says, the answer to this problem remains unclear, so I have provided both sides of this point here. 2 Of course, omission is not always unethical. Sometimes omissions are used for clarity or brevity (i.e., omissions of unimportant facts). However, evidence of publication in predatory journals is important for confirming the ethics of the researcher, and this information should not be omitted. Ideally, there should be a database that ensures that all researchers’ publications are included and made public. Currently, ORCID may not include predatory journals. For this reason, the completeness and openness of bibliographic information and its active use for researcher evaluation should be better encouraged in the future. 5 topics. Such intentionally predatory authors will continue to emerge, as long as the publish- or-perish situation persists. How then, if we have unintentionally published in predatory journals, can we ensure the credibility of a paper without denying the fact that it has been published in a predatory journal? Authors in this situation may have recourse. Arguably, the biggest problem in publishing in predatory journals is that their internal assessment systems are dysfunctional or non-existent; therefore, to offset this problem, authors must compensate in some way. Herein are some ways for researchers to address this important issue at each stage in the publishing process—before submitting a paper, during peer review, and after publication. However, as this article concerns papers published in predatory journals, it does not include ways to avoid such journals or withdraw/retract submitted papers. Furthermore, the methods I present here are not directed at authors who intentionally published
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Search for Academic Journal Articles Online
    How to search for Academic Journal Articles Online While you CAN get to the online resources from the library page, I find that getting onto MyUT and clicking the LIBRARY TAB is much easier and much more familiar. I will start from there: Within the Library tab, there is a box called “Electronic Resources” and within that box is a hyperlink that will take you to “Research Databases by Name.” Click that link as shown below: The page it will take you looks like the picture below. Click “Listed by Name.” This will take you to a list starting with A, and the top selection is the one you want, it is called “Academic Search Complete.” Click it as pictured below: THIS SECTION IS ONLY IF YOU ARE ON AN OFF-CAMPUS COMPUTER: You will be required to log-in if you are off campus. The First page looks like this: Use the pull-down menu to find “University of Toledo” The Branch should default to “Main Campus,” which is what you want. Then click “Submit.” Next it will ask for you First and Last Name and your Rocket ID. If you want to use your social security number, that is also acceptable (but a little scary.). If you use your rocket ID, be sure to include the R at the beginning of the number. Then click Submit again and you are IN. The opening page has the searchbox right in the middle. When searching, start narrow and then get broader if you do not find enough results. For Example, when researching Ceremony by Leslie Silko, you may want your first search to be “Silko, Ceremony.” If you don’t find enough articles, you may then want to just search “Silko.” Finally, you may have to search for “Native American Literature.” And so on and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Availability of Scientific Publications
    Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications* Final Report January 2018 By: Science-Metrix Inc. 1335 Mont-Royal E. ▪ Montréal ▪ Québec ▪ Canada ▪ H2J 1Y6 1.514.495.6505 ▪ 1.800.994.4761 [email protected] ▪ www.science-metrix.com *This work was funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSES or the NSF. The analysis for this research was conducted by SRI International on behalf of NSF’s NCSES under contract number NSFDACS1063289. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Citation Indexing Services: ISI, Wos and Other Facilities
    Citation Indexing Impact Factor and “h-index” Where do we stand? Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities Volker RW Schaa GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH Darmstadt, Germany JACoW Team Meeting 2012 IFIC@Valencia, Spain November, 2012 Volker RW Schaa Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities Citation Indexing Impact Factor and “h-index” Where do we stand? Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities Volker RW Schaa GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH Darmstadt, Germany JACoW Team Meeting 2012 IFIC@Valencia, Spain November, 2012 Volker RW Schaa Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities Citation Indexing Impact Factor and “h-index” Where do we stand? 1 Citation Indexing What are we talking about? Citation Indexing: How does it work? 2 Impact Factor and “h-index” Popularity Usage JACoW in “ISI Web of Knowledge”? 3 Where do we stand? References, references, references, . Volker RW Schaa Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities WoS — Web of Science “Web of Science” is an online academic citation index provided by Thomson Reuters. ISI Web of Knowledge Thomson Scientific & Healthcare bought “ISI” in 1992 and since then it is known as “Thomson ISI”. “Web of Science” is now called “ISI Web of Knowledge”. Citation Indexing What are we talking about? Impact Factor and “h-index” Citation Indexing: How does it work? Where do we stand? What are we talking about? ISI — Institute for Scientific Information ISI was founded in 1960. It publishes the annual “Journal Citation Reports” which lists impact factors for each of the journals that it tracks. Volker RW Schaa Citation Indexing Services: ISI, WoS and Other Facilities ISI Web of Knowledge Thomson Scientific & Healthcare bought “ISI” in 1992 and since then it is known as “Thomson ISI”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Analysis of the Journal Evaluation System in China
    A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China Ying HUANG1,2, Ruinan LI1, Lin ZHANG1,2,*, Gunnar SIVERTSEN3 1School of Information Management, Wuhan University, China 2Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and Department of MSI, KU Leuven, Belgium 3Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Tøyen, Oslo, Norway Abstract Journal evaluation systems are important in science because they focus on the quality of how new results are critically reviewed and published. They are also important because the prestige and scientific impact of journals is given attention in research assessment and in career and funding systems. Journal evaluation has become increasingly important in China with the expansion of the country’s research and innovation system and its rise as a major contributor to global science. In this paper, we first describe the history and background for journal evaluation in China. Then, we systematically introduce and compare the most influential journal lists and indexing services in China. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD); the journal partition table (JPT); the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI); the Chinese STM Citation Report (CJCR); the “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC); the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI); and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other lists published by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are briefly introduced as well. Thereby, the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China is comprehensively covered. Methods and practices are closely described and sometimes compared to how other countries assess and rank journals. Keywords: scientific journal; journal evaluation; peer review; bibliometrics 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Costs of Implementing an Open Access Policy at a Private ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Foundation
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/128413; this version posted August 17, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Estimated costs of implementing an open access policy at a private ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ foundation 1 2 Carly Strasser ​ and​​ Eesha Khare ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 Gordon​ and Betty Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, California, USA ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2 Harvard​ University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Corresponding author: ​ ​ Carly Strasser1 ​ ​ ​ Email address: [email protected] ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/128413; this version posted August 17, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Abstract Background: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ understanding the potential effects of a policy requiring open access to peer-reviewed ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ publications resulting from the research the foundation funds. Methods: We collected data on ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ more than 2000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open
    [Show full text]
  • Catalyzed Synthesis of Zinc Clays by Prebiotic Central Metabolites
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/075176; this version posted September 14, 2016. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Catalyzed Synthesis of Zinc Clays by Prebiotic Central Metabolites Ruixin Zhoua, Kaustuv Basub, Hyman Hartmanc, Christopher J. Matochad, S. Kelly Searsb, Hojatollah Valib,e, and Marcelo I. Guzman*,a *Corresponding Author: [email protected] aDepartment of Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA; bFacility for Electron Microscopy Research, McGill University, 3640 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada; cEarth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Science Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; dDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546, USA; eDepartment of Anatomy & Cell Biology, 3640 University Street, Montreal H3A 0C7, Canada The authors declare no competing financial interest. Number of text pages: 20 Number of Figures: 9 Number of Tables: 0 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/075176; this version posted September 14, 2016. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract How primordial metabolic networks such as the reverse tricarboxylic acid (rTCA) cycle and clay mineral catalysts coevolved remains a mystery in the puzzle to understand the origin of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Biology Behind Immunoprotection of Both Sheep and Goats After 2 Sungri/96 PPRV Vaccination
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.14.252056; this version posted August 15, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 Systems Biology behind immunoprotection of both Sheep and Goats after 2 Sungri/96 PPRV vaccination 3 Sajad Ahmad Wani1,2#, Manas Ranjan Praharaj3#, Amit R Sahu1, Raja Ishaq Nabi 4 Khan1, Kaushal Kishor Rajak1, Dhanavelu Muthuchelvan4, Aditya Sahoo5, Bina 5 Mishra1, R. K. Singh1*, Bishnu Prasad Mishra1* and Ravi Kumar Gandham3* 6 1 ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Bareilly, India 7 2 The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States 8 3 DBT-National Institute of Animal Biotechnology, Hyderabad, India 9 4 ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Mukteswar, India 10 5 ICAR- Directorate of Foot and Mouth Disease, Mukteswar, India 11 # Equal Contributors 12 * Corresponding Authors: Ravi Kumar Gandham, [email protected] 13 Bishnu Prasad Mishra, [email protected] 14 Raj Kumar Singh, [email protected] 15 16 Abstract 17 Immune response is a highly coordinated cascade involving all the subsets of 18 PBMCs. In this study, RNA-Seq analysis of PBMC subsets - CD4+, CD8+, CD14+, 19 CD21+ and CD335+ cells from day 0 and day 5 of Sungri/96 Peste des Petits 20 Ruminants vaccinated sheep and goats was done to delineate the systems biology 21 behind immune - protection of the vaccine in sheep and goats. Assessment of the 22 immune response processes enriched by the differentially expressed genes in all the 23 subsets suggested a strong dysregulation towards development of early inflammatory 24 microenvironment, which is very much required for differentiation of monocytes to 25 macrophages, and for activation and migration of dendritic cells into the draining lymph 26 nodes.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Preprints and How Do They Accelerate Science Communication?
    What are preprints and how do they accelerate science communication? Sarvenaz Sarabipour, PhD Johns Hopkins University United States eLife Ambassador Outline • Scholarly Communication: Why Open Science? • Preprints • Preprint popularity on the Rise • Values of preprints • Perceived Concerns on Preprinting • Peer-review • Final Thoughts Scholarly Communication: Why Open Science? • The outputs of scientific research: research articles, reviews, theory manuscripts, methods, data, reagents, and highly trained researchers. • Research productivity is increasing at an unprecedented rate. • Technological innovations, a surge in available computing power, and • The ease with which digital information is stored and communicated is helping researchers to cross experimentation boundaries, to increase data availability, and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge. • Scientists communicate amongst themselves at conferences, via journal articles, and, increasingly in the life sciences, in preprint manuscripts which have not been subject to journal-mediated peer review. 4 Preprints • Preprints are online, freely available (open-access) scientific manuscripts posted by authors on dedicated servers prior to journal-mediated peer review and publication in an academic journal • Now over 1.3 million preprints on arXiv • Approximately 40,000 preprints on bioRxiv, the latter representing the work of over 160,000 researchers from more than 100 countries. • Approximately 70% of bioRxiv articles posted before 2017 were subsequently published in 1,531 journals Preprint
    [Show full text]
  • Web of Science™ Core Collection Current Contents Connect®
    WEB OF SCIENCE™ CORE COLLECTION CURRENT CONTENTS CONNECT® XML USER GUIDE March, 2020 Table of Contents Overview 3 Support and Questions 4 Selection Criteria 5 XML Schemas 7 Schema Diagram 8 Source Record Identifiers 9 Document and Source Titles 11 Source Author Names 12 Full Names and Abbreviations 13 Chinese Author Names 13 Authors and Addresses 15 Research and Reprint Addresses 17 Organizations 18 Contributors 19 Cited References 21 Citations to Articles from Journal Supplements 22 Issue Information in the Volume Field 23 Cited Authors in References to Proceedings and Patents 23 © 2020 Clarivate Analytics 1 Counting Citations 24 Times Cited File 25 Delivery Schedule 26 Corrections and Gap Records 27 Deletions 28 Journal Lists and Journal Changes 29 Appendix 1 Subject Categories 30 Subject Catagories (Ascatype) 30 Web of Science™ Core Collection Subject Areas (Traditional Ascatype) 30 Research Areas (Extended Ascatype) 34 Current Contents Subject Codes 38 Current Contents Editions and Subjects 38 Appendix 2 Document Types 43 Document Types 43 Web of Science Core Collection Document Types 43 Current Contents Connect Document Types 44 Appendix 3 Abbreviations and Acronyms 46 Address Abbreviations 46 Country Abbreviations 51 Cited Patent Country Abbreviations 57 © 2020 Clarivate Analytics 2 Overview Your contract for raw data entitles you to get timely updates, which you may store and process according to the terms of your agreement. The associated XML schemas describe the record structure of the data and the individual elements that define
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Indexing and Ranking Academic Journals
    The Politics of Indexing and Ranking Academic Journals The ACME Editorial Collective1 As part of a recent application to Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for funding to support publication of ACME,2 the journal’s editorial collective was required to provide information on “impact measures” for the journal as well as information on the indexes and journal aggregators that list ACME. The SSHRC instructions stated simply: Provide information on impact measures (or, in the absence of any third-party impact measures, describe the impact your journal has had). Identify the individual indexes and journal aggregators in which the journal is listed. (SSHRC, 2007, 6) At first blush, these instructions are pretty straightforward, but on further reflection — and put in their wider context – it becomes clear that there are some rather significant politics at play within these seemingly simple requests for mere “technical” information (Berg, 2006; Paasi, 2005; Sheppard, 2006). The problematic character of impact measures was reinforced for us when, as a result of our SSHRC application, we recently considered submitting an application to include ACME in the widely used ISI Web of Science journal index. Our intention was to increase the exposure of ACME to students and members of the academic community. However, our objective was to have the journal indexed in ISI, but not included in what we see as the onerous system of journal rankings 1 © ACME Editorial Collective, 2007 2 This application was successful, and we are grateful to SSHRC for supporting the journal for 2007-08. This support will allow ACME to increase the number of issues per volume.
    [Show full text]