Journal evaluation methodologies are often used to produce journal-ranking lists for various purposes. In this study, the authors present a modularity-based journal evaluation methodology based on the proportional contributions that journals receive from authors affiliated with globally ranked institutions. This empirically developed methodology draws on a stratification of institutions in the global rankings to allocate weights to article batches in a given journal. The authors apply the proposed methodology to evaluating 12,150 scholarly journals in different subject fields. The results show an elitist set of journals with a heavy tendency to publish mostly from authors affiliated with the top-ranked institutions. These journals have the highest weighted author affiliation index (WAAI) scores and are highly distinguished titles in different subject fields. However, the authors find a large population of journals that receive contributions mostly from institutions at lower ranks. They argue that the WAAI methodology provides a generic and objective evaluation technique for ranking journals across all disciplines.
{"title":"WAAI: A Weighted Author Afliation Index for Journal Evaluation","authors":"Javad Hayatdavoudi, M. Goltaji, Mansour Haghighat","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0074","url":null,"abstract":"Journal evaluation methodologies are often used to produce journal-ranking lists for various purposes. In this study, the authors present a modularity-based journal evaluation methodology based on the proportional contributions that journals receive from authors affiliated with globally ranked institutions. This empirically developed methodology draws on a stratification of institutions in the global rankings to allocate weights to article batches in a given journal. The authors apply the proposed methodology to evaluating 12,150 scholarly journals in different subject fields. The results show an elitist set of journals with a heavy tendency to publish mostly from authors affiliated with the top-ranked institutions. These journals have the highest weighted author affiliation index (WAAI) scores and are highly distinguished titles in different subject fields. However, the authors find a large population of journals that receive contributions mostly from institutions at lower ranks. They argue that the WAAI methodology provides a generic and objective evaluation technique for ranking journals across all disciplines.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85500346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholar performance evaluation plays a key role in management science and engineering. Scholar evaluation using Google Scholar and ResearchGate can serve as an indispensable scouter for evaluating scholar performance. Both tools to quantitatively evaluate scholars can be used to support evidence-based decision making in administration and human resources. However, both tools must be used together for complementing accurate scholar evaluation. Tis author shows examples of fatal drawbacks in Google Scholar and ResearchGate, respectively. Scopus and Publons, used as default scholar performance, are afected by publisher-bias selection of journals and conferences. Te author recommends scholar performance evaluation using both tools such as Google Scholar and ResearchGate together with Scopus and Publons.
{"title":"Credibility on Scholar Performance Evaluation Using Google Scholar and ResearchGate","authors":"Y. Takefuji","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0076","url":null,"abstract":"Scholar performance evaluation plays a key role in management science and engineering. Scholar evaluation using Google Scholar and ResearchGate can serve as an indispensable scouter for evaluating scholar performance. Both tools to quantitatively evaluate scholars can be used to support evidence-based decision making in administration and human resources. However, both tools must be used together for complementing accurate scholar evaluation. Tis author shows examples of fatal drawbacks in Google Scholar and ResearchGate, respectively. Scopus and Publons, used as default scholar performance, are afected by publisher-bias selection of journals and conferences. Te author recommends scholar performance evaluation using both tools such as Google Scholar and ResearchGate together with Scopus and Publons.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82402520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In biomedical papers resulting from the cooperation of a biomedical team and a statistical team, the leader of the statistical team is traditionally placed second-to-last in the authors’ list. In many papers, the leader of the statistical team designs, initiates, and supervises the project, so they play a key role in the production of a scientific publication. This key role is not reflected in systems of evaluation of scientific publications in which the second-to-last author receives equal or less credit than the other co-authors.
{"title":"Chief Statisticians as Second-to-Last Authors in Biomedical Papers","authors":"Adam Gregosiewicz, M. Kosmulski","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0059","url":null,"abstract":"In biomedical papers resulting from the cooperation of a biomedical team and a statistical team, the leader of the statistical team is traditionally placed second-to-last in the authors’ list. In many papers, the leader of the statistical team designs, initiates, and supervises the project, so they play a key role in the production of a scientific publication. This key role is not reflected in systems of evaluation of scientific publications in which the second-to-last author receives equal or less credit than the other co-authors.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73065459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.
{"title":"You Might Have to Refute, but Unfortunately the Path to Doing So May Not Be So Clear: A Case Study","authors":"M. Wyatt","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76195228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tien-Trung Nguyen, Hiep-Hung Pham, Van-An Nguyen-Le, C. H. Nguyen, Trung Tran
Abstract:Since the emergence of the internet and open science in the 1990s, "predatory journals," or "predatory publishing," have attracted the increasing attention of scholars. Research on the topic has grown at a rapid rate, particularly in the last five years. This article serves as the first bibliometric review on the topic of "predators in the scientific publication" and draws on 869 published articles from the Scopus database between 2012 and 30 March 2022. These papers were produced by a total of 1586 authors, coming from 101 countries, representing 1538 organizations, and published in 501 journals. Research disciplines mostly covered the fields of medicine, social sciences, and nursing. This study also reveals the complexity of issues and research trends around the topic of predatory scientific publications, including the review process for scientific journals, publication fees and article processing charges, open science and open-access publications, and the like and related topics such as the impact on scholars in developing countries and academic ethics. Finally, this article provides several recommendations, namely, the need for more efficient criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific journals, more public communication on the importance of ethics in research and publication, and a greater awareness among scholars and organizations of the implications of the "predator" issue in scientific publishing.
{"title":"Review of Research on Predatory Scientific Publications from Scopus Database between 2012 and 2022","authors":"Tien-Trung Nguyen, Hiep-Hung Pham, Van-An Nguyen-Le, C. H. Nguyen, Trung Tran","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Since the emergence of the internet and open science in the 1990s, \"predatory journals,\" or \"predatory publishing,\" have attracted the increasing attention of scholars. Research on the topic has grown at a rapid rate, particularly in the last five years. This article serves as the first bibliometric review on the topic of \"predators in the scientific publication\" and draws on 869 published articles from the Scopus database between 2012 and 30 March 2022. These papers were produced by a total of 1586 authors, coming from 101 countries, representing 1538 organizations, and published in 501 journals. Research disciplines mostly covered the fields of medicine, social sciences, and nursing. This study also reveals the complexity of issues and research trends around the topic of predatory scientific publications, including the review process for scientific journals, publication fees and article processing charges, open science and open-access publications, and the like and related topics such as the impact on scholars in developing countries and academic ethics. Finally, this article provides several recommendations, namely, the need for more efficient criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific journals, more public communication on the importance of ethics in research and publication, and a greater awareness among scholars and organizations of the implications of the \"predator\" issue in scientific publishing.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83365478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:As scholarly publishing continues to expand its international dimension in the globalizing era, authors in non-Anglophone contexts today are increasingly confronted with the decision to publish nationally or internationally. Linguistic challenges aside, such a decision is complicated by the tension between local interests and international solidarity with changing conventions of scholarly publishing in the national context. This study investigated one facet of this tension by comparing national and international publishing activities in the humanities and social sciences based on the data collected from the websites of sixty Chinese-medium national journals and sixty English-medium international journals. The findings point to a complex interplay between local and international traditions, norms, and politics of knowledge production. What these changes mean and how they may bear on author choice is discussed with implications for understanding the dynamic landscape of scholarly publishing in non-Anglophone systems of knowledge production.
{"title":"Publishing Nationally or Internationally in the Humanities and Social Sciences: What Do Journal Websites Say about the Divide?","authors":"Ningyang Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0019","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:As scholarly publishing continues to expand its international dimension in the globalizing era, authors in non-Anglophone contexts today are increasingly confronted with the decision to publish nationally or internationally. Linguistic challenges aside, such a decision is complicated by the tension between local interests and international solidarity with changing conventions of scholarly publishing in the national context. This study investigated one facet of this tension by comparing national and international publishing activities in the humanities and social sciences based on the data collected from the websites of sixty Chinese-medium national journals and sixty English-medium international journals. The findings point to a complex interplay between local and international traditions, norms, and politics of knowledge production. What these changes mean and how they may bear on author choice is discussed with implications for understanding the dynamic landscape of scholarly publishing in non-Anglophone systems of knowledge production.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91108302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Things Are More Complicated Now: Scholarly Journals and the Dissemination of Academic Research","authors":"D. Poff","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78727943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise.
{"title":"Who is Publishing in Biomedical Predatory Journals? A Study on Chinese Scholars","authors":"Jiahao Wang, Cheng Yang, Ming Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0066","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The scale of predatory journals in the biomedical field is proliferating worldwide. In China, numerous cases of academic misconduct have occurred in international biomedical journals. The study aims to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of Chinese authors publishing in predatory biomedical journals and their perceptions of predatory journals. In predatory biomedical journals, 1408 Chinese scholars with 1482 published papers were identified. A questionnaire on predatory journals was emailed to them to analyse their perceptions of predatory journals. The study finds that provinces and cities with more authors are mainly distributed in eastern and central China. Authors mainly worked in hospitals (n = 1162, 82.53 per cent) and schools (n = 246, 17.47 per cent). Among hospitals, forty-eight are currently ranked in the top fifty in China. A total of ninety-three (7 per cent) authors responded to the questionnaire. Only half of the authors knew the concept of predatory journals (n = 45, 48.39 per cent). Most respondents would not consider choosing predatory journals again (n = 85, 91.40 per cent). Among all the corresponding authors, doctors working in top Chinese hospitals made up the majority. Chinese authors had insufficient knowledge of predatory journals, although most had professional expertise.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74638820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Books and Social Media: How the Digital Age is Shaping the Printed Word by Miriam J. Johnson (review)","authors":"Jingan Chen","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0077","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89183978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Shiva Ferdousi, V. Z. Gavgani, S. Oskouei, H. Hosseinifard
Abstract:Different factors influence the altmetric attentions for scholarly articles on social media. This study aimed to evaluate the effecting factors on altmetric coverage of journals in non-English-speaking countries. Using a total population sampling technique, we included all Iranian and Turkish journals published from 2016 to 2019. Altmetric data were collected from altmetric.com using an application programming interface, for the coverage of mentions aggregated by the journal articles on Twitter, Facebook, and news media. The correlations between the languages, field of study, Google PageRank (GPR) score, and availability of a 'share button' with mentions were calculated using non-parametric tests. Among all articles, 2,378 articles were scholarly communicated on social media, and there were 7,191 mentions in the evaluated platforms. The scholarly publication of Iran and Turkey differed greatly concerning the subject matter. However, Twitter ranked first among the highly used alternative metrics for scholarly communication in both countries. The number of mentions for English journals was higher than for bilingual ones. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between the GPR and the coverage of mentions on Twitter and news media.
{"title":"Evaluating the Factors Affecting Scholarly Communication of Journal Articles on Social and News Media: An Altmetric Study","authors":"Shiva Ferdousi, V. Z. Gavgani, S. Oskouei, H. Hosseinifard","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2022-0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Different factors influence the altmetric attentions for scholarly articles on social media. This study aimed to evaluate the effecting factors on altmetric coverage of journals in non-English-speaking countries. Using a total population sampling technique, we included all Iranian and Turkish journals published from 2016 to 2019. Altmetric data were collected from altmetric.com using an application programming interface, for the coverage of mentions aggregated by the journal articles on Twitter, Facebook, and news media. The correlations between the languages, field of study, Google PageRank (GPR) score, and availability of a 'share button' with mentions were calculated using non-parametric tests. Among all articles, 2,378 articles were scholarly communicated on social media, and there were 7,191 mentions in the evaluated platforms. The scholarly publication of Iran and Turkey differed greatly concerning the subject matter. However, Twitter ranked first among the highly used alternative metrics for scholarly communication in both countries. The number of mentions for English journals was higher than for bilingual ones. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between the GPR and the coverage of mentions on Twitter and news media.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77191667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：