Learned Publishing最新文献

Journal evaluation is a multifaceted issue, and multidimensional information cannot be conflated into one metric due to the inability of a single indicator to reflect the quality of a journal. The goal of this paper is to develop a multidimensional journal evaluation framework based on the Pareto-dominated set through integrating information measured by the Manhattan distance related to article performance, academic communities, and publishing platforms. This paper identifies 29 related indexes to form a three-dimensional (3D) journal evaluation framework with metrics involving stakeholders in journal publication. To reduce multicollinearity among related indexes, a factor analysis-based entropy weight method is proposed to integrate the multidimensional information into five aggregated indicators and then transform them into a 3D-weighted influence factor coordinate system. A journal evaluation framework is defined based on the Pareto-dominated set of a journal in the 3D-coordinate system measured by the Manhattan distance to assess journal impact. A case study has been implemented based on 124 journals selected from the “Statistics & Probability” category in the 2019 Journal Citation Report to demonstrate the validity of the proposed method.

Technology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing-related tasks: suggesting appropriate journals for an article, providing quality control for submitted papers, finding suitable reviewers for submitted papers or grant proposals, reviewing, and review evaluation. It also discusses attempts to estimate article quality from peer review text and scores as well as from post-publication scores but not from bibliometric data. The literature and existing examples of working technology show that automation is useful for helping to find reviewers and there is good evidence that it can sometimes help with initial quality control of submitted manuscripts. Much other software supporting publishing and editorial work exists and is being used, but without published academic evaluations of its efficacy. The value of artificial intelligence (AI) to support reviewing has not been clearly demonstrated yet, however. Finally, whilst peer review text and scores can theoretically have value for post-publication research assessment, it is not yet widely enough available to be a practical evidence source for systematic automation.

The main objective of this study was to identify editorial practices related to time management in Spanish Communication journals and determine whether their time management is homogeneous, as well as to evaluate which journals are more agile, discover the differences between general and special issues, and identify practices that could streamline the publication process. To this end, we worked with an exploratory-type methodology focused on content analysis. The sample analysed included 1,581 articles published in 2021 by the 62 Communication journals included in the Índice Dialnet de Revistas (IDR) 2020, differentiating between those published in general and special issues, with the aim of focusing attention on the time elapsed from when journals receive articles until their final publication. The results reveal little homogeneity in policies regarding information on dates and confirms average times of more than 6 months for the duration of the process, with the publication process for special issues being more agile. The strength of this work lies in the demonstration of the need to work on common policies that enable the publication process to be streamlined while accelerating the availability of research results for the benefit of academia as well as society.

Using a sample of articles published in top accounting journals, we estimate a multivariate model and find empirical evidence of factors influencing delay in article acceptance. Acceptance delay is measured as the time from article submission to acceptance. We find that article length and journal workload are significantly and positively associated with acceptance delay, whereas the distance to historical aspirations in terms of journal impact factor, top corresponding authors and affiliations, as well as corresponding author affiliation with institutions in the USA or the Netherlands, are significantly and negatively associated with acceptance delay. We also find significant differences in acceptance delays related to specific journal procedures and editorial policies. Finally, we observe that acceptance delay increases over time.

Scholars who use English as an additional language (EAL) worldwide are under increasing pressure to write and publish in English due to the pervasive publish-or-perish culture and the growing dominance of English in academia. While previous studies have focused either on textual differences between EAL scholars' writing and native writers', or explored the difficulties EAL scholars meet and strategies they employ in the process, this paper examines a longitudinal case of a Chinese engineering scholar using online machine translation (MT) to support his academic writing and publishing in English. Drawing from the technology acceptance model as the theoretical background, this study shows that online MT can be a crucial support for scholars with limited English proficiency in the process of preparing a manuscript, submitting it and communicating with editors and reviewers. Frequently occurring problems in machine-translated academic texts include improper use of technical terms, use of informal language and the inclusion of grammatical mistakes. However, in the last decade, online MT has made great improvements in academic translation. We believe these findings can empower EAL scholars to effectively use online MT in academic English writing and inspire educators to help novice scholars mobilize various high-tech tools such as online MT to support their writing and international publishing.

Author disambiguation has been a key component of scientific communication since the mid-19th century, and now more than ever. This paper discusses the use of ORCID as a digital identity platform in Social Sciences and Humanities, by analysing the adoption of ORCID in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto using a manual-qualitative method. The results show a discrepancy between the use of ORCID as an ID and as an author record. Even though 90.4% of the sample studied had an ORCID iD, the records were found to be incomplete for disambiguation purposes. The ‘Also known as’ field was used by only 31% of the 170 profiles analysed, less than half of the profiles had completed the ‘Country’ field and the ‘Peer review’ field is hardly used. An important finding is the inconsistency in affiliation information recorded in the ‘Employment’ field. We verified that keeping profiles updated and complete requires interoperability and the role of ORCID-trusted organizations, such as the FCT in Portugal. In conclusion, it was found that a university's institutional strategy, the organizational culture and a mediation process will help improve the correct adoption of ORCID.

This study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus-indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower-ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes.