Learned Publishing最新文献

Investigates whether junior researchers believe that the scholarly communication system is changing in a significant way, whether they have contributed to the changes they envisaged, whether the pandemic has fast-forwarded change and what they thought a transformed system might look like. The data are drawn from the Harbingers-2 project, which investigated the impact of the pandemic on the scholarly communications attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs), employing repeat interviewing with around 170 science and social science junior researchers from eight countries. The article focuses on the findings of the last of three rounds of interviews, with comparisons made with the first round, held 18 months earlier, when the pandemic was most active. A majority of ECRs thought that there had been significant changes in the scholarly system, and a large minority thought that the pandemic was responsible. Most of them wanted a system that was more open in terms of open access and open data, with a third taking personal action to bring about change.

This study attempts to detect papers originating from the Russia-based paper mill ‘International Publisher’ LLC. A total of 1,063 offers to purchase co-authorship on a fraudulent papers published from 2019 to mid-2022 on the 123mi.ru website were analysed. This study identifies at least 451 papers that are potentially linked to the paper mill, including one preprint, a duplication paper and 16 republications of papers erroneously published in hijacked journals. Evidence of suspicious provenance from the paper mill is provided: matches in title, number of co-authorship slots, year of publication, country of the journal, country of a co-authors and similarities of abstracts. These problematic papers are co-authored by scholars from at least 39 countries and are submitted to both predatory and reputable journals. This study also demonstrates collaboration anomalies in questionable papers and examines indicators of the Russia-based paper mill. The value of co-authorship slots offered by ‘International Publisher’ LLC from 2019 to 2021 is estimated at $6.5 million. Since this study only analysed a single paper mill, it is likely that the number of papers with forged authorship is much higher.

This study created a comprehensive Country Diversity Score (CDS) index to measure the degree of journal internationality from a diversity perspective, based on publishing authors' affiliation countries. It calculates CDS values and analyses their distribution across countries, publication languages, disciplines, subjects, and journal impact factor (JIF) quartiles for 11,481 journals, and addresses the correlation between CDS and JIF. Empirical studies indicate that journals with authors evenly distributed across more countries are more likely to obtain a higher CDS value. English publications have a relatively high CDS worldwide, and the non-English publications of a country have a lower CDS than its English-language publications. In addition, this study found a positive correlation between journal internationality and JIF in terms of the geographical distribution of publishing authors. Implications and recommendations for improving geographical authorship diversity, particularly in the context of internationalization, are discussed.

Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre- and post-retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (n = 128) and plagiarism (n = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post-retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post-retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (n = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions.

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.