《国际期刊预警名单》专访，深入报道预警期刊最新变化!

　　每次预警期刊的公布都牵动着很多学者的心绪，《Nature》专访预警期刊负责人杨立英研究员，向全球科学家报道预警期刊的最新变化。《China has a list of suspect journals and it’s just been updated》探讨了这份全球影响力颇为深远的预警期刊名单缘何而生、如何研制，并进一步聚焦于名单在今年的新变化——明确标记了具有“引用操纵”等不当行为的期刊和与“国际传播作用”背道而驰的期刊。

　　下面是节选的部分重点内容，各位作者可作为参考：

　　【名单背后的机制】

　　以来自中国研究人员与科研管理者的反馈为工作基准，结合国际针对学术不端问题的研究锚定问题焦点。在识别异常期刊，确定初步名单后，我们与相关出版社就期刊被列入的原因进行反复沟通，得到调查反馈和合理阐释的期刊，将被从上述异常名单中移除。我们始终欢迎来自各界的合理建议和意见，以优化工作。

　　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.

　　【预警标记透明化，预警类别动态更新，提供负责任的科学参考】

　　由于注意到科研人员和科研管理人员常规性地回避被预警期刊的风险类别和具体问题，因此今年选择不再设置风险分类，而是标注期刊被预警的具体原因，做到预警标准透明化。保持与各方交流，动态更新研制机制，比如开放获取模式的兴起部分证明期刊发文量快速增长的合理性，名单不应干预由市场决定的自然过程，因此取消了发文量陡增这一标准。

　　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.

　　【瞄准问题——标记出引用模式异常的期刊】

　　科研界对期刊和作者间引用异常问题热议不断。基于科睿唯安数据库的文献数据，我们识别、追踪并揭露了部分期刊存在的“引用操纵”行为。出版商对我们的工作反响积极，部分已经开展对不端行为的自查。我们将持续关注并尝试调查新形式的“引用操纵”问题。

　　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.

　　【瞄准问题——为何担忧存在“畸形”中国论文比例的期刊】

　　来自任何一个国家的作者比例从来不是预警一本期刊的独立标准。若一本期刊的稿件几乎全部来自于中国，期刊学术影响力极低，并需要支付不合理的高昂APC(论文处理费)，这与国际期刊本应发挥的国际传播作用是背道而驰的，此类发表可能是对有限科研经费的浪费，立足于朝向科研强国发展的中国科研界来看，这是一个需要担忧的问题。

　　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.

　　【善用数据与工具】

　　团队持续关注并收集各类学术诚信平台的信息，未来或将启用图像和文本检测工具。团队构建了“Amend”学术论文预警数据库，对有疑问的文献进行标记和追踪，方便科研人员、科研管理者、期刊等查询。

　　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.