PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY最新文献

Purpose

The primary objective of this study is to provide an understanding of authors’ satisfaction with the publishing processes of journals, specifically focusing on the Uongozi Journal of Management Development Dynamics, published and owned by Mzumbe University.

Design/Methodology/Approach

This study employed a single case-study design that focuses on a specific geographical area to simplify data collection. A mixed-methods approach was used, gathering quantitative data through survey questionnaires and qualitative data through interviews to assess authors’ satisfaction levels with the journal’s publishing processes. The population included a total of 54 authors published in the Uongozi Journal over five years (2017–2021), with a sample of 30 authors selected using a stratified random sampling technique. Quantitative data were analyzed with Microsoft Excel, while qualitative data underwent content analysis and was presented in quotation form.

Findings

The findings indicate high levels of author satisfaction, particularly in areas such as manuscript handling, feedback quality and timely publication. Efficient and timely processes were appreciated by respondents as essential, which fostered collaboration between authors and journal editorial board and reviewers. Additionally, the journal’s robust communication channels and feedback mechanisms created a supportive environment and improved authors’ satisfaction.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The study concludes that authors’ satisfaction with the publishing process is influenced by two factors: first, timeliness, professionalism and the quality of published work; and second, a transparent and well-organized process, along with prompt and constructive feedback. It is recommended that the Uongozi Journal of Management Development Dynamics should assess its reputation, and be indexed in more reputable platforms such as the Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), SCOPUS and the like to improve its quality. It should also prioritize efficient peer review, provide clear communication and seek qualified editorial board members for it to continue to remain relevant.

The objective of this study was to analyze the degree of changes in indexed journals within a database using SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) as a proxy for Scopus. We downloaded SJR-listed journal data to examine journal evolution over the past decade (2013–2022) and analyzed them in terms of the following metrics: the number of journals, growth rates, normalized growth and the Jaccard index. The findings revealed a significant increase in Scopus-indexed journals during this period, with journals growing from 23,957 in 2013 to 27,033 (12.8 percent) but declining after peaking at 28,099 in 2019. Open access (OA) journals exhibited remarkable growth and higher turnover (48.3 percent) than non-OA journals (2.3 percent). For a thorough assessment of journal growth and overlap, we propose using a quadrant analysis. Using this approach, we found an inverse relationship between the normalized growth rate and the Jaccard index across different subject areas and countries. The methods described in this study can be used to analyze changes in indexed journals in other databases and thus contribute to a better understanding of its indexed journals.

We live in an extraordinary time in human history. Arguably, the most significant social changes have taken place in recent decades, including changes in policy and attitudes towards human rights, how we educate and treat children, towards sexual violence and abuse, sexuality and gender identification, to name just a few. In Australia, we have witnessed public responses through Royal Commissions and other public inquiries that have given voice to generations of people whose suffering had been silenced by formal and informal social mechanisms. Now, in the twenty-first century, the proliferation of new technologies, social media and social campaigns designed to engage people online as well as offline have empowered citizens to take control of their narratives, to tell their own stories. In the published literature, a great many have begun to reveal the nature and extent of traumas experienced by individuals, families, groups and entire communities. In the publishing industry, scant attention is given to the occupational risks faced by the workforce charged with disseminating these trauma stories: the editors, literary agents, proofreaders, publicists and other publishing personnel who are repeatedly exposed to trauma narratives. Even as publishing facilitates healing through story, it is also perpetuating—or at the very least enabling—the transmission of trauma: from author to publishing personnel, and quite possibly also from industry to reader. This paper posits that publishing as an industry is awash with trauma. Through the perspective of an industry insider, it explores the three faces of trauma in the publishing context: recounting trauma as a vehicle for healing and reconciliation, the trauma narrative as a commodity and vicarious trauma as an occupational hazard.

The main objective of this research is to quantify for the first time the phenomenon of books authored by ChatGPT for sale through Amazon. To do this and with the help of a quantitative descriptive methodology, this work analyzes the evolution of books written by ChatGPT, and the characteristics of these works—typology, language, price, extension and type of edition—are determined. Also, this research studies those authors using ChatGPT and discusses the scope of this phenomenon, proposing measures and actions that promote transparency and good practices in the publishing industry regarding books written by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Finally, this work concludes that ChatGPT is having a significant impact on the publishing world, from both the creation and distribution of content, so the appropriate balance between the use of AI and human intervention will continue to be essential to maintain a diverse and creative publishing industry.

The use of sensitivity readers has become increasingly prevalent in the publishing industry over the past decade (Brouillette 2023; Jilani 2023; Kingsbury 2024; Sharma 2023; Thomalla 2023; West-Knights 2023). To some, sensitivity readers are controversial figures who seek to censor writers’ voices, while for others they are much-needed defences against the perpetuation of discrimination in literature (Lawrence 2020). Given the relatively novel application of sensitivity reading in publishing processes, there remains a scarcity of research into, and understanding of, the practical implications of this editorial process. The following transcript of a discussion between University of Exeter Master of Arts (Publishing) student, D-M Withers, and sensitivity reader and published author Georgina Kamsika reflects on the specificities of this industry role, providing insight into our understanding of sensitivity reading as a unique editorial layer within the publishing chain.

Publishing articles in scholarly peer-reviewed journals is considered as one of the best publishing ways that helps researchers to build their academic reputation. Citing the references used throughout a research work is a crucial element when publishing scientific research. However, many authors have experienced a coercive behavior of reviewers who are trying to force them to include additional references to the revised version of their manuscript. This unethical practice, which is called coercive citation, has not received considerable attention by journals and publishers to address the issue. This piece discusses the appropriate measures that should be taken to deal with this unethical behavior more effectively.