zl19891025 2021-01-09

Speaking truthfully, the quality of IEEE Access is really poor. Many articles are simply rewrites of others and lack originality, showing extremely low quality. It can even be considered academic misconduct. It feels like IEEE Access is solely focused on making money.

KKT 2021-01-08

Warning should not be based on IF or citation count, or even on the average quality of articles. Otherwise, it would be sufficient to simply issue warnings for the bottom 50% of journals in each field based on their IF.

hky 2021-01-08

There is definitely a problem with the warning list from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. If they have already given it to the top, then what is the point of issuing a warning?

135467841321 2021-01-08

The Chinese Academy of Sciences' early warning definitely has some truth in it. By looking at the numbers, Access has published 10,000+ articles in 20 years, but only 40 of them have high citations. Among them, China has published 10,000 articles, while the rest are a total of 7,000. The USA has published 1,476 articles. The selected region is China (because only regions with less than 10,000 articles can access citation reports). Out of the 9,412 articles, they have been cited 5,500 times, averaging 0.5 citations per article. Self-citations account for 4,045 times, averaging 0.4 citations per article. This is an open-access journal, but it is surprising that it has such few citations when it is easier to be cited. It is not excluded that there are good articles, with nearly 30 highly cited articles from China. However, the majority of the articles are of low quality, and the high proportion of articles from China should be a cause for concern. It is not excluded that there are prominent researchers publishing in this journal because open access makes it easier to disseminate and be cited. If open access leads to easy dissemination but zero citations, then there is a problem. Welcome everyone to discuss, as progress can only be made through a diversity of voices.

135467841321 2021-01-08

The warning from the Chinese Academy of Sciences certainly has some merit. By looking at the numbers, Access has published 17,000 articles in 20 years, with only 40 of them receiving high citations. Among them, China contributed 10,000 articles, while the rest came from other countries, totaling 7,000. The USA contributed 1,476 articles. The chosen region for analysis is China (because it has less than 10,000 articles for citation reports). Out of the 9,412 articles, they were cited 5,500 times, averaging 0.5 citations per article. Excluding self-citations, they were cited 4,045 times, averaging 0.4 citations per article. This is an open-access journal, and it is surprising that it has such low citation rates, considering that open-access journals are typically more easily cited. It is not to say that there aren't any good articles, as China has nearly 30 highly cited articles. However, the majority of the articles seem to be of low quality, especially considering the high proportion contributed by China. It is reasonable to be alerted to this. It is also possible that influential researchers have published in this journal because open access makes their work more easily disseminated and cited. If open access leads to easy dissemination but zero citations, then that is a problem.