共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
The paper presents the results of an international questionnaire survey of the attitudes of senior authors towards scholarly publishing. It was commissioned by the Publishers Association (PA) and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). A total of 5,513 authors participated. The questionnaire included 22 closed questions and one open‐ended question that 1,943 authors used to freely express their views. Using QSR N6 textual analysis software, their comments were processed and themes extracted. The main concerns of the authors were the peer‐review process, faster publishing, better access to journals, journal prices, and issues related to electronic publishing. 相似文献
2.
Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of ‘self‐archiving’ was less. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self‐archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to. 相似文献
3.
4.
Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality. 相似文献
5.
Responses from almost 1,250 academic authors around the world were analysed to obtain their views on electronic publishing of learned journals. Currently, having a print version of journals is still more important to them than an electronic version. The issue of greatest importance to authors and readers is the continuing availability of back volumes, and there are strong concerns about pricing of electronic journals. The potential gains in publication speed through publishing electronically appear not to be a priority. Electronic preprint and reprint archives are used very little at present, with the exception of the physics and mathematics communities. Of all publisher‐mediated tasks, the peer‐review process is the most valued, followed by provision of citation‐linking. Respondents' views of future developments in electronic publishing are also explored. 相似文献
6.
Many librarians support faculty with the publishing process, which includes journal selection and evaluating the impact of their scholarly output. While large universities have the resources for entire departments devoted to bibliometrics, the authors of this article give strategies for faculty publishing support at a smaller liberal arts university. The authors created a LibGuide with publishing resources and presented the initiative to several academic divisions. Faculty were surveyed, and the results indicated that the majority of respondents were interested in assessing journal quality and viewed the library as a resource for help with the publishing process. 相似文献
7.
Mohammad Salehi Mohammad Soltani Hadis Tamleh Shohreh Teimournezhad 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):89-95
The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist. 相似文献
8.
229 Chinese‐language biomedical journals from A Guide to The Core Journals of China were investigated for their guidance on 14 ethical issues. The issues of authorship, duplicate submission, privacy and confidentiality, and integrity of the data were mentioned in more than 50% of the journals. Except for the issues of authorship and protection of animals in research, significant differences were found between Chinese Medical Association Publishing House (CMAPH) journals (n = 67) and non‐CMAPH journals (n = 162) (P < 0.05). 66 of the 229 journals did not update their instructions for authors regularly. 196 journal instructions listed authorship criteria, while the other 33 did not. Clinical trial registration policy was required by 26 (11.3%) journals, among which the CONSORT statement for randomized trials was required by 23, and only one journal guided the authors to work in line with the EQUATOR Network. The study concludes that the situation of publishing ethics in the instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals is not favorable, and that Chinese biomedical editors should learn more about publishing ethics in order to reduce opportunities for publication problems. 相似文献
9.
Louisa Ha 《Learned Publishing》2003,16(3):193-199
This article re‐examines the economics of publishing scholarly journals and illustrates the dilemma of publisher identity and publication format with a case study of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's Media Management and Economics division. The study investigates the perceived interest and demand for a society‐published journal for the field of media management and economics and the preferred format for that journal – print or online. Results showed a divided opinion on the support of a society‐published journal and no consideration of the benefits or harms of journal publishing to the society. The print journal, though a desirable format for authors, is deemed uneconomical. The online journal is viewed as a feasible publication outlet, but its status as a prestigious journal is doubtful. Applications of scholarly journal publishing and economic models to the case are discussed. 相似文献
10.
11.
12.
Mehdi Dadkhah Glenn Borchardt Mohammad Lagzian Giorgio Bianciardi 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2017,33(2):183-187
The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which are challenging scholarly publishing. Legitimate impact factors are used by authors and editors to get a general idea of the audience, if any, for a particular piece or journal. The bogus metrics only add confusion in support of the cybercrimes of their initiators. In this paper, we discuss bogus impact factors, victim countries, and try to clarify the phenomena for both authors and editors. 相似文献
13.
14.
Using the theory of planned behavior as a theoretical framework, survey data from 121 authors in the professional field of school librarianship (40% of whom were practitioners) were used to identify beliefs about publishing in the field, attitudes to research and publication, perceived social norms and social influences on research and publication, and perceived barriers to research and publication. The journals in which the authors prefer to publish and their reasons for journal choice are also reported. This is the first reported study to specifically address reasons for publication choice in a professional field, and it indicates that relevance to practice is an important consideration, in addition to scholarly rigor, when authors in professional fields consider where to publish their research. The views and motivations of full professors, other researchers and practitioner-authors were surprisingly similar, although practitioners—who had less research preparation than researchers—were less confident about their ability to conduct and write-up research. Additionally, researchers other than full professors, and practitioners, reported that the encouragements of peers and supervisors or senior colleagues were important social influences for research and publication. 相似文献
15.
学术期刊实现Open Access出版的模式与平台 总被引：6，自引：1，他引：5
介绍目前在学术出版界广为讨论的Open Access出版模式,指出Open Access对学术期刊发展的意义。同时介绍国内以期刊编辑部为主体的Open Access出版的概况和特点。结合目前国内流行的Open Access出版平台软件的功能,说明Open Access出版的技术基础,为期刊编辑部建立Open Access出版平台提供参考。 相似文献
16.
Universities have had to develop new strategies to raise their profile in the international marketplace. In Malaysia, as in many other nations, publication in ISI‐ranked journals is a crucial factor. This focus is causing a strain on national journals that suffer from a lack of content, institutional support, and national recognition. This paper presents data about Malaysian journal publishing and the study questioned editors in chief of Malaysian journals to obtain opinions of the problems they encounter and possible solutions. Data were collected through interviews. The participants in the study highlighted four main issues that resulted in a weak publishing environment: institutional reputation building (academic reputation), researcher prestige/image building, lack of focus on local journal issues by legislators, and a weak publishing culture. The article concludes that the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education should pay attention to national initiatives in countries such as India and Australia that recognize national journals and reward researchers for publishing in them. 相似文献
17.
Library‐led publishing is one of the new approaches to journal publishing and open access that has grown tremendously in the last few years. A 2010 IMLS‐funded survey found that 55% of respondents – from US academic libraries of all different types and sizes – were already implementing or developing a publishing program. Library‐led publishing has garnered such momentum because, by offering low‐ or no‐cost publishing to university scholars, it addresses needs that traditional publishing has not been able to meet. This article presents a series of small case studies to illustrate different journals that have benefited from the library‐publishing model: (i) a journal that struggled to find an affordable publisher in its emerging field; (ii) a small society journal that could no longer afford to support itself in print; (iii) society publications that go beyond the traditional journal format; and (iv) a student journal with a revolving editorial board. 相似文献
18.
基于普赖斯定律和二八定律及在线投稿系统构建某科技期刊核心作者用户库 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
以某刊为例,根据普莱斯定律及2013-2015年在某刊的投稿情况设定满足条件:1)2013-2015年发文量≥2篇;2)A:2013-2015年连续3年均在该刊投稿;B:2014年或2015在该刊投稿量≥2篇的作者用户(满足条件2中的A或B均可)为高发文量且对投稿某刊有一定青睐程度的核心作者候选用户.根据二八定律确定文章被引频次或下载频次在各年排名前20％左右的文章作者为具有高影响力的核心作者候选人.将既满足高发文量、高影响力且对投稿某刊有一定青睐程度的作者用户作为该刊的核心作者用户群,构建核心作者用户库,通过为该批用户提供更加优质服务激发他们的写作热情和投稿热情,以吸引优质稿件.最终纳入74名作者用户为该刊的核心作者用户群,共投稿306篇,录用200篇,最高录用比100％,最低28.6％,平均65.4％,其中下载频次或被引频次在各年进入前20％的文章总数为99篇,占比49.5％,最高被引频次14次,最高下载频次314次. 相似文献
19.
20.
Stephen Pinfield 《Learned Publishing》2006,19(3):219-225
This paper discusses the implications of the Wellcome Trust agreement with Blackwell, OUP, and Springer in which authors of accepted papers are able to pay an open‐access publication charge to make their article freely available online. In bringing together flexible licence terms and clear funding streams, the agreement has the potential to be used as a way of migrating towards possible new business models for journal publishing. It also has the potential, if implemented more widely, to deliver greater open access in such a way as to work in the interests of a broad range of stakeholders. 相似文献