Learned Publishing最新文献

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.

Some open access (OA) publishers charge authors fees to make their articles freely available online. This paper reviews literature on article processing charges (APCs) that has been published since 2000. Despite praise for diamond OA journals, which charge no fees, most OA articles are published by commercial publishers that charge APCs. Publishers fix APCs depending on the reputation assigned to journals by peers. Evidence shows a relationship between high impact metrics and higher, faster rising APCs. Authors express reluctance about APCs, although this varies by discipline depending on previous experience of paying publication fees and the availability of research grants to cover them. Authors rely on a mix of research grants, library funds and personal assets to pay the charges. Two major concerns have been raised in relation to APCs: the inability of poorly funded authors to publish research and their impact on journal quality. Waivers have not solved the first issue. Research shows little extension of waiver use, unintended side effects on co-author networks and concerns regarding criteria to qualify for them. Bibliometric studies concur that journals that charge APCs have a similar citation impact to journals that rely on other income sources.

This paper analyses the conference papers published by double first-class universities from mainland China between 2006 and 2019. The main findings are as follows: first, the number of conference papers from different double first-class universities varied greatly, with the annual numbers of papers in the China Proceedings of Conferences Full-text Database (CPCD) and in the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) fluctuating during this period. Second, most of the top 10 disciplines of the papers in the CPCD and CPCI were in the natural sciences, with only two in the social sciences. The CPCD papers and CPCI papers had some overlap in their disciplinary distributions. Third, the CPCD and CPCI papers differed little in total number, with the number of CPCI papers being slightly higher than the number of CPCD papers. With the introduction of new regulations from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST), there will likely be an increase in the number of Chinese-language conference papers in the future.

In the published article (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1535), there was an unintended error where the corresponding author's name was spelled incorrectly under the author thumbnail. The correct name is “George Cooper”.