质疑出版对学术界的干扰
Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia
摘要：
有问题的出版物被指责为“贪婪”的做法;然而，它们对学术界的影响却没有得到衡量。在这里，我们通过对来自学术界的各种参与者进行系统和全面的分析，探讨有问题出版物的影响，并使用数十亿条引用记录（包括联络人，即，期刊和出版商，以及生产者，即，自行有问题的出版物属性的作者级自引到他们的期刊，而限制期刊级自引;然而，传统的期刊级指标无法检测这些作者级自引。我们提出了一个混合的期刊出版商的指标，用于检测出版商QJ之间的自我青睐的引用。此外，我们证明，有问题的出版物的破坏性和影响力比他们的同行。我们的研究结果表明，可疑的学术出版商的引用影响夸大。调查结果为针对可疑出版物制定可采取行动的政策提供了依据。
英文摘要：
Questionable publications have been accused of "greedy" practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, i.e., journals and publishers, and prosumers, i.e., authors. Questionable publications attribute publisher-level self-citations to their journals while limiting journal-level self-citations; yet, conventional journal-level metrics are unable to detect these publisher-level self-citations. We propose a hybrid journal-publisher metric for detecting self-favouring citations among QJs from publishers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the questionable publications were less disruptive and influential than their counterparts. Our findings indicate an inflated citation impact of suspicious academic publishers. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy-making against questionable publications.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
