المؤلفون: Graham Smith (6593255)

مصطلحات موضوعية: Research, science and technology policy, Data management and data science not elsewhere classified, Information governance, policy and ethics, open data, research data, state of open data, Chinese research data, CAS CNIC, Springer Nature, Data management, Data sharing, Survey data

العلاقة: https://figshare.com/articles/presentation/Webinar_slides_State_of_Open_Data_2022_Key_takeaways_/21856953Test

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21856953.v1Test

المؤلفون: Butler, Leigh-Ann, Matthias, Lisa, Simard, Marc-André, Mongeon, Philippe, Haustein, Stefanie

المصدر: Quantitative Science Studies

مصطلحات موضوعية: open access, gold open acces, hybrid open access, article processing charges, author fees, Unpaywall, Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Franics, Sage, Transformative Agreements, big five academic publishers

العلاقة: https://zenodo.org/record/8322555Test; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8322555Test; oai:zenodo.org:8322555

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8322555Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7086420Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7226232Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057143Test
https://zenodo.org/record/8322555Test

المؤلفون: J. A. Teixeira da Silva, Х. А. Тейшейра да Силва

المساهمون: Автор выражает благодарность Томасу Бивитту (Институт философии и права УрО РАН) за кропотливую работу по редактированию оригинала данной статьи на английском языке. Автор так- же выражает искреннюю благодарность Яну Моисеенко (Институт философии и права УрО РАН) и Ната- лье Поповой (Институт философии и права УрО РАН) за перевод текста с английского на русский язык

المصدر: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 8, No 2 (2023); 110-123 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 8, No 2 (2023); 110-123 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267

مصطلحات موضوعية: проверка статус-кво, blacklists and whitelists, editorial oversight, failed peer review, status quo testing, Springer Nature, редакционная политика, ответственность, хищнические издания, цитирование, черные списки, белые списки, редакционный надзор, неудавшееся рецензирование

وصف الملف: application/pdf

العلاقة: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/361/225Test; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/361/226Test; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/361/243Test; Ojala M., Reynolds R., Johnson K.G. Predatory journal challenges and responses. The Serials Librarian. 2020;78:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894Test; Strinzel M., Severin A., Milzow K., Egger M. Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio. 2019;10:e00411-19. https://doi.org/10.1128Test/; mBio.00411-19; erratum: mBio. 2021;12:e03108-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.03108-20Test; corrigendum: mBio. 2022;13:e0130522. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01305-22Test; Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27:273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029Test; Kimotho S. G. The storm around Beall’s List: A review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers. African Research Review. 2019;13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kendall G. Academia should stop using Beall’s Lists and review their use in previous studies. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 2023;4:39–47. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04Test; Koerber A., Starkey J. C., Ardon-Dryer K., Cummins R. G., Eko L., Kee K. F. A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing? The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102236Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Moradzadeh M., Adjei K. O. K., Owusu-Ansah C. M., Balehegn M., Faúndez E. I., Janodia M. D., Al-Khatib A. An integrated paradigm shift to deal with “predatory” publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481Test; Bisaccio M. Cabells’ journal whitelist and blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing. 2018;31:243–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1164Test; Dony C., Raskinet M., Renaville F., Simon S., Thirion P. How reliable and useful is Cabell’s Blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly. 2020;30:1–38. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Moradzadeh M., Yamada Y., Dunleavy D. J., Tsigaris, P. Cabells’ Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2023;49:102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist. Open Information Science. 2022;6:136–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0136Test; Mimouni M., Braun E., Mimouni F. B., Mimouni D., Blumenthal, E. Z. Beall’s list removed: What stands between us and open access predators? American Journal of Medicine. 2017;130:e371–e372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.040Test; Strielkowski W. Predatory publishing: What are the alternatives to Beall’s list? American Journal of Medicine. 2018;131:333–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054Test; Kendall G. Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1374Test; Krawczyk F., Kulczycki E. How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2021;47:102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271Test; Coates A. Academic journals’ usernames and the threat of fraudulent accounts on social media. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1430Test; Rivera H., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Retractions, fake peer review, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2021;36:e165. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165Test; Pérez-Neri I., Pineda C., Sandoval H. Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clinical Rheumatology. 2022;41:2241–2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9Test; Gallent Torres C. Editorial misconduct: The case of online predatory journals. Heliyon. 2022;8:e08999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08999Test; Sureda-Negre J., Calvo-Sastre A., Comas-Forgas R. Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:441–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1450Test; Gupta B. B., Arachchilage N. A. G., Psannis K. E. Defending against phishing attacks: Taxonomy of methods, current issues and future directions. Telecommunication Systems. 2018;67:247–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-017-0334-zTest; Dadkhah M., Maliszewski T., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2016;12:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9785-xTest; Abalkina A. Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics. 2021;126:7123–7148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0Test; Trejo-Pech C. O., Thach S. V., Thompson J. M., Manley J. Violations of standard practices by predatory economics journals. Serials Review. 2021;47:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1959183Test; Walters W. H. The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall’s List of potentially predatory publishers and journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102484Test; Laine C., Winker M. A. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27:285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031Test; Shamseer L., Moher D., Maduekwe O., Turner L., Barbour V., Burch R., Clark J., Galipeau J., Roberts J., Shea B.J. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Ccan you tell the difference? A crosssectional comparison. BMC Medicine. 2017;15:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9Test; Cobey K. D., Lalu M. M., Skidmore B., Ahmadzai N., Grudniewicz A., Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research. 2018;7:1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2Test; Cobey K. D., Grudniewicz A., Lalu M. M., Rice D. B., Raffoul H., Moher D. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: A survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026516. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516Test; Cukier S., Helal L., Rice D. B., Pupkaite J., Ahmadzai N., Wilson M., Skidmore B., Lalu M. M., Moher D. Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: A systematic review. BMC Medicine. 2020;18:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1Test; Cukier S., Lalu M., Bryson G. L., Cobey K. D., Grudniewicz A., Moher D. Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e035561. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561Test; Leonard M., Stapleton S., Collins P., Selfe T. K., Cataldo T. Ten simple rules for avoiding predatory publishing scams. PLoS Computational Biology. 2021;17:e1009377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009377Test; Oermann M. H., Nicoll L. H., Carter-Templeton H., Owens J. K., Wrigley J., Ledbetter L. S., Chinn P. L. How to identify predatory journals in a search: Precautions for nurses. Nursing. 2022;52:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000823280.93554.1aTest; Kendall G., Linacre S. Predatory journals: Revisiting Beall’s research. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2022;38:530–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09888-zTest; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dunleavy D. J., Moradzadeh M., Eykens J. A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of journals and publishers. Scientometrics. 2021;126:8589–8616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3Test; Dunleavy D. J. Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2022;12:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Junk science, junk journals, and junk publishing management: Risk to science’s credibility. Philosophia. 2023;51:1701–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0Test; Moed H. F., Lopez-Illescas C., Guerrero-Bote V. P., de Moya-Anegon F. Journals in Beall’s list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1428Test; Frandsen T. F. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing. 2019;32:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214Test; Frandsen T. F. Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1489Test; Mills D., Inoue K. Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325Test; Siler K. Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2021;71:1386–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24339Test; Ng J. Y., Haynes R. B. “Evidence-based checklists” for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An analysis and proposal for moving forward. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;138:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.015Test; Rupp M., Anastasopoulou L., Wintermeyer E., Malhaan D., El Khassawna T., Heiss C. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics. 2019;43:509–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1Test; Manley S. Predatory journals on trial. Allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2019;50:183–200. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.3.02Test; Siler K., Vincent-Lamarre P., Sugimoto C. R., Larivière V. Predatory publishers’ latest scam: Bootlegged and rebranded papers. Nature. 2021;598:563–565. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8Test; Grudniewicz A., Moher D., Cobey K. D., Bryson G. L., Cukier S., Allen K., Ardern C., Balcom L., Barros T., Berger M., Ciro J. B., Cugusi L., Donaldson M. R., Egger M., Graham I. D., Hodgkinson M., Khan K. M., Mabizela M., Manca A., Milzow K., Mouton J., Muchenje M., Olijhoek T., Ommaya A., Patwardhan B., Poff D., Proulx L., Rodger M., Severin A., Strinzel M., Sylos-Labini M., Tamblyn R., van Niekerk M., Wicherts J. M., Lalu M. M. Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576:210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-yTest; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Tsigaris P., Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: an assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2019;45:102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Tsigaris P. Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070Test; Ndungu M. W. Scholarly journal publishing standards, policies and guidelines. Learned Publishing. 2021;34:612–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1410Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Al-Khatib A., Tsigaris P. Challenges facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) as a reliable source of open access publishing venues. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences. 2018;55:349–358. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55Test(3).e001.BC.BE; Cortegiani A., Ippolito M., Ingoglia G., Manca A., Cugusi L., Severin A., Strinzel M., Panzarella V., Campisi G., Manoj L., Gregoretti C., Einav S., Moher D., Giarratano A. Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: The GhoS(t)copus Project. F1000Research. 2020;9:415. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23847.2Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2023;79:601–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009Test; Munn Z., Barker T., Stern C., Pollock D., Ross-White A., Klugar M., Wiechula R., Aromataris E., Shamseer L. Should I include studies from “predatory” journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2021;19:1915–1923. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00138Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kendall G. Mis(-classification) of 17,721 journals by an artificial intelligence predatory journal detector. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2023;39:263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09956-yTest; Yamada Y., Teixeira da Silva J. A. A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity. 2022;56:4075–4087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 2022;28:383–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2039242Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Kimotho S. G. Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2022;48:102418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102418Test; Chirico F. “Predatory journals” or “predatory scholars”? The essential role of the peer review process. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2017;8:186–188. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2017.1082Test; Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2019;25:293–321. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5Test; Olivarez J. D., Bales S., Sare L., van Duinkerken W. Format aside: applying Beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College and Research Libraries. 2018;79:52–67. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Al-Khatib A., Tsigaris P. Spam emails in academia: Issues and costs. Scientometrics. 2020;122:1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03315-5Test; Clements J. C., Daigle R. M., Froehlich H. E. Predator in the pool? A quantitative evaluation of nonindexed open access journals in aquaculture research. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018;5:106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00106Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Citations and gamed metrics: Academic integrity lost. Academic Questions. 2021;34:96–99. https://doi.org/10.51845/34s.1.18Test; Siler K., Larivière V. Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation. Research Policy. 2022;51:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2022;38:760–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? International Orthopaedics. 2020;44:2193–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-wTest; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Al-Khatib A. How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2021;16:139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.01.008Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is the continued claim of indexing in Publons by journals a predatory publishing characteristic? Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 2023;52:448–449. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.06.006Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. Publication history: A double DOI-based method to store and/or monitor information about published and corrected academic literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2022;53:85–108. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.2017-0017Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Conflicts of interest arising from simultaneous service by editors of competing journals or publishers. Publications. 2021;9:6. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010006Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Should editors with multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct serve on journal editor boards? European Science Editing. 2022;48:e95926. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e95926Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Vuong Q-H. Editors with multiple retractions, but who serve on journal editorial boards: Case studies. Epistēmēs Metron Logos. 2023;9:1–8. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.33935Test; Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;23:947–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8Test; Nishikawa-Pacher A. Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach. Journal of Documentation. 2022;78:450–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Fassin Y. Reflection on the Springer Nature initial public offering attempts in an evolving academic publishing market. Learned Publishing. 2022;35:448–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1453Test; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Tumor Biology’s struggle to survive: A tough lesson for cancer research journals. Forum of Clinical Oncology. 2022;13:23–25. https://doi.org/10.2478/fco-2022-0001Test; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/361Test

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-23-17Test
https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1722894Test
https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.03108-20Test
https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029Test
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i2.1Test
https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2023.4.1.04Test
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481Test
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1164Test
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659Test
https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0136Test

المؤلفون: Haustein, Stefanie, Butler, Leigh-Ann

مصطلحات موضوعية: accès libre, frais de traitement des articles, éditeurs savants, revues universitaires, Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, Sage, Taylor & Francis

العلاقة: https://zenodo.org/record/7259696Test; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7259696Test; oai:zenodo.org:7259696

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7259696Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7086420Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7158818Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7259695Test
https://zenodo.org/record/7259696Test

المؤلفون: Koçyiğit, Abdürrahim, Güler, Eray Metin

المساهمون: KOÇYİĞİT, ABDÜRRAHİM

مصطلحات موضوعية: Koçyiğit A., Güler E. M., Antioxidant/Pro-oxidant, Anti-inflammatory, and Immunomodulatory Effects of Thymoquinone in Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Handbook of Oxidative Stress in Cancer-, Sajal Chakraborti,Bimal K. Ray,Susanta Roychoudhur, Editör, Springer Nature, Singapore, ss.1-14

الوقت: 2022

العلاقة: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/29694Test

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/20.500.12645/29694Test
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/29694Test

المؤلفون: Schmal, W. Benedikt, Haucap, Justus, Knoke, Leon

مصطلحات موضوعية: ddc:330, A14, I23, J16, L86, Z11, academic publishing, journal choice, gender differences, DEAL, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, transformative agreements

العلاقة: Series: CESifo Working Paper; No. 10340; gbv-ppn:1843771438; http://hdl.handle.net/10419/271984Test; RePec:ces:ceswps:_10340

الإتاحة: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/271984Test

المؤلفون: Cameron Neylon, Alkim Ozaygen, Lucy Montgomery, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang, Ros Pyne, Mithu Lucraft, Christina Emery

المصدر: Insights: The UKSG Journal, Vol 34, Iss 1 (2021)

مصطلحات موضوعية: open access, books, springer nature, usage pattern, download, citation, Bibliography. Library science. Information resources

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://insights.uksg.org/articles/558Test; https://doaj.org/toc/2048-7754Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/2893ff2684364dcc9d4a8ec342faf446Test

المؤلفون: Nature Research

مصطلحات موضوعية: Library and information studies not elsewhere classified, research integrity, Springer Nature

العلاقة: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Research_Integrity_Training_Needs_and_provisions_in_institutions_in_India/25400167Test

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25400167.v2Test

المؤلفون: Lannon, Amber¹ (AUTHOR) amber.lannon@mcgill.ca, McKinnon, Dawn¹ (AUTHOR)

المصدر: Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship. Apr-Jun2013, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p89-99. 11p. 4 Charts, 4 Graphs.

مصطلحات موضوعية: ELECTRONIC books, AUDIOBOOKS

الشركة/الكيان: SPRINGER Nature Switzerland AG , NETLIBRARY (Company) , EBRARY Inc. 102978587

المؤلفون: Butler, Leigh-Ann, Matthias, Lisa, Simard, Marc-André, Mongeon, Philippe, Haustein, Stefanie

مصطلحات موضوعية: open access, oligopoly of academic publishers, gold open acces, hybrid open access, cost of open access, article processing charges, author fees, Unpaywall, Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Franics, Sage, Transformative Agreements

العلاقة: https://zenodo.org/record/7057144Test; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057144Test; oai:zenodo.org:7057144

الإتاحة: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057144Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7086420Test
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057143Test
https://zenodo.org/record/7057144Test