共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(6):102618
PurposeThis paper aims to examine whether Altmetric data can be used as an indicator for identifying predatory journals.Design/methodology/approachThis is an applied study which uses citation and Altmetrics methods. The study selected 21 predatory journals from the Beall's list and Kscien's list, as well as 18 non-predatory open access journals from the DOAJ's list, in the field of Library and Information Science. The Altmetric score for articles published in these journals was obtained from the Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Web of Science was used to search for citation data of articles published in these journals.FindingsThe predatory journals almost have no presence in social media, with poor Altmetric score. In contrast, non-predatory open access journals have a high presence rate and Altmetric score. There is a significant positive correlation between the number of articles cited and the number of articles having Altmetric score among non-predatory open-access journals, but not among predatory journals. Poor Altmetric score may be viewed as a potential characteristic of predatory journals, but other indicators would also need to be considered to determine whether a journal is predatory.Originality/valueDistinct from the traditional research methods, this study combined citation analysis and Altmetrics analysis. By comparing the characteristics of predatory journals and non-predatory open access journals, the findings contribute to the identification of predatory journals. 相似文献
2.
期刊学术影响力、期刊对稿件的录用标准和期刊载文的学术影响力三者之间存在同向加强的机制,来自较高影响力期刊的引用具有较高的评价意义。作者的择刊引用和择刊发表使得较低学术影响力的期刊较少被较高影响力期刊引用。因而,可以通过同时考察构成期刊引证形象的施引期刊的学术影响力及其施引频次来评价被引期刊的学术影响力。以综合性期刊Nature和Science 2010年的引证形象为例,将期刊影响因子作为学术影响力的初评结果,提出了以施引频次对施引期刊影响因子加权的计算方法,以期通过量化的引证形象实现对期刊的评价。 相似文献
3.
Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):265-277
This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus. 相似文献
4.
Using 17 open-access journals published without interruption between 2000 and 2004 in the field of library and information science, this study compares the pattern of cited/citing hyperlinked references of Web-based scholarly electronic articles under various citation ranges in terms of language, file format, source and top-level domain. While the patterns of cited references were manually examined by counting the live hyperlinked-cited references, the patterns of citing references were examined by using the cited by tag in Google Scholar. The analysis indicates that although language, top-level domain, and file format of citations did not differ significantly for articles under different citation ranges, sources of citation differed significantly for articles in different citation ranges. Articles with fewer citations mostly cite less-scholarly sources such as Web pages, whereas articles with a higher number of citations mostly cite scholarly sources such as journal articles, etc. The findings suggest that 8 out of 17 OA journals in LIS have significant research impact in the scholarly communication process. 相似文献
5.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(3):102418
Jeffrey Beall, a US librarian, coined the term “predatory publishing” specifically to describe a movement or phenomenon of open access (OA) journals and publishers that he and others believed displayed exploitative and unscholarly principles. Using a blog to transmit those ideas, and profiling specific cases using blacklists, one of the most polemic aspects of Beall's blog was its tendency to attract and incite academic radicalism. Beall targeted both publishers and standalone journals, but how he precisely determined that an OA journal or a publisher was predatory was in many cases an ambiguity. Beall's deficient and highly subjective criteria, as well as those blacklists' incapacity to clearly distinguish low quality OA publishers from predatory ones, may have negatively impacted the operations of several Beall-blacklisted OA journals and publishers. Freedom of speech that embraces prejudice, via Beall's blog, and the establishment of “predatory” blacklists, are enhanced discriminatory ideologies that continue to be carried downstream from Beall to and by other like-minded individuals and groups who proliferate academic divisiveness and may also be formalizing and institutionalizing a culture of discriminative philosophies by cloning Beall's blacklists and encouraging their continued use. 相似文献
6.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(5):102056
BackgroundThe number of predatory journals is constantly growing and creating a major threat. Researchers in biomedical sciences should be aware of predatory publishers and be able to recognize them.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge about predatory journals both before and after showing them an infographic explaining these journals and their publishing model.MethodsThis study was conducted with a sample of biomedical researchers and students. Subjects answered two questionnaires, one before explaining a designed infographic to each participant through a direct face-to-face interview.ResultsA total of 158 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 22.6 (±1.72) years. They were 122 (77.2%) undergraduates and 36 (22.8%) graduate students. The median number of research projects our subjects participated in was 1 (0–5), and the median number of published projects was 0 (0–3). Awareness of predatory journals or Beall's List improved from 7% and 2.5%, respectively, before the infographic to 97.5% and 94.9% after the infographic.ConclusionOur results indicate the beneficial use of the designed infographic to improve young researchers' awareness of predatory journals. We encourage research institutions and universities to effectively spread awareness of predatory journals. 相似文献
7.
William H. Walters 《The Reference Librarian》2013,54(1):13-22
This guide describes several information sources that can be used to assist faculty interested in quantitative and qualitative assessments of journal reputation and scholarly impact: Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, Google Scholar Metrics, Elsevier Journal Metrics, Excellence in Research for Australia, Cabell’s International, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Beall’s List. It also introduces the indicators most often used to represent citation impact: impact factor, article influence score, eigenfactor, h5-index, source normalized impact per paper, impact per publication, and SCImago journal rank. Methods of assessing the influence of individual articles are also presented, along with strategies for the identification of predatory or low-quality journals. 相似文献
8.
文章通过Scopus数据库和SciVal分析平台,统计分析首批入选“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”高校自然科学学报的载文量、总被引频次、篇均被引频次、高被引论文比、零被引论文比、中国学者引用贡献率、CiteScore及其百分位、发文的专业化程度等指标,定量展示入选的高校自然科学学报的国际影响力现状及差异。研究结果表明,入选的中文学报国际影响力有限,不宜过分强调国际化;入选的英文学报国际影响力有很大提升空间,提倡立足于本土的国际化;中文和英文学报均应凸显专业化特征,坚持高质量发展。 相似文献
9.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
10.
Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
The impact factor of a journal reflects the frequency with which the journal's articles are cited. It is the best available measure of journal quality. For calculation of impact factor, we just count the number of citations, no matter how prestigious the citing journal is. We think that impact factor as a measure of journal quality, may be improved if in its calculation, we not only take into account the number of citations, but also incorporate a factor reflecting the prestige of the citing journals relative to the cited journal. In calculation of this proposed “weighted impact factor,” each citation has a coefficient (weight) the value of which is 1 if the citing journal is as prestigious as the cited journal; is >1 if the citing journal is more prestigious than the cited journal; and is <1 if the citing journal has a lower standing than the cited journal. In this way, journals receiving many citations from prestigious journals are considered prestigious themselves and those cited by low-status journals seek little credit. By considering both the number of citations and the prestige of the citing journals, we expect the weighted impact factor be a better scientometrics measure of journal quality. 相似文献
11.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(1):102070
Screening criteria are a vital part of society, medicine and publishing. In this paper, a new framework, based on epidemiological principles, is developed to assess the effectiveness of criteria that are used to detect predatory behavior, or to assess whether a journal or publisher is predatory, and create blacklists. Applying epidemiological measures such as specificity, sensitivity, prevalence rates, the likelihood ratio, posterior and prior probabilities and odds, as well as Bayesian analysis, we elaborate on the false discovery rate and work towards assessing the likelihood that an entity is in fact predatory when screening criteria are used. We applied the framework to three different prevalence cases: a low prevalence rate where all journals are screened for predatory behavior assuming Jeffrey Beall's criteria are used; a higher rate when only open access journals are assessed; the highest rate where only Walt Crawford grayOA journals were screened for deceptive publishing practices. In all cases, we found a very high false discovery rate even when using reasonable values for the sensitivity and specificity rate for Beall's screening criteria. 相似文献
12.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2017,43(5):434-442
This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact. 相似文献
13.
由Web of Science数据库分析高影响力中华医学会系列期刊引发的思考 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
通过Web of Science数据库的“被引参考文献检索”途径,将中华医学会123种非SCI期刊作为国内大量的非SCI科技期刊的代表,统计其刊载文献被SCI期刊引用的情况;以被引文献数量大于50篇作为高影响力期刊的筛选条件,分析其中高影响力期刊的被引文献数量、单篇被引文献最高引用频次、施引文献数量、施引文献最高被引频次以及施引文献的国家地区分布、出版年份分布,从而了解这些非SCI科技期刊的国际影响力.基于这一分析,认为SCI期刊并非是获得同行认可的唯一途径,国内大量的非SCI科技期刊应走“立足国内,面向世界”的发展道路,以踏实做专业领域内有影响力的期刊为目标;同时呼吁国家有关部门能对现行科研评价指标进行调整,鼓励质量上乘的稿件能选择具有影响力的国内期刊发表. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(4):101349
Prediction of the future performance of academic journals is a task that can benefit a variety of stakeholders including editorial staff, publishers, indexing services, researchers, university administrators and granting agencies. Using historical data on journal performance, this can be framed as a machine learning regression problem. In this work, we study two such regression tasks: 1) prediction of the number of citations a journal will receive during the next calendar year, and 2) prediction of the Elsevier CiteScore a journal will be assigned for the next calendar year. To address these tasks, we first create a dataset of historical bibliometric data for journals indexed in Scopus. We propose the use of neural network models trained on our dataset to predict the future performance of journals. To this end, we perform feature selection and model configuration for a Multi-Layer Perceptron and a Long Short-Term Memory. Through experimental comparisons to heuristic prediction baselines and classical machine learning models, we demonstrate superior performance in our proposed models for the prediction of future citation and CiteScore values. 相似文献
15.
Lindley Homol 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2014,40(6):552-557
Many students struggle when citing sources in their research papers and have turned to web-based citation tools in increasing numbers. In order to test the accuracy of the citations generated by these products, a sample of student-selected electronic journal articles was collected and MLA and APA citations for these articles were created using EBSCO Discovery Service's Cite tool, EndNote Basic, RefWorks, and Zotero. Although EndNote Basic, RefWorks and Zotero's APA citation error rates were significantly lower than that of EBSCO Discovery Service, none of the programs was capable of generating an error-free MLA electronic journal citation. 相似文献
16.
Jingfeng XIA 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):69-74
This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not. 相似文献
17.
Vincent KIERNAN 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(1):5-13
Many publishers of medical journals actively court coverage by the news media. However, the extent and effect of these practices are poorly understood. After reviewing prior literature regarding the impact of news coverage on the citation rate of journal articles, this paper seeks to measure the extent to which medical journals with clinical significance use public relations practices to encourage news coverage of their articles, and the success that those practices had in increasing coverage by newspapers. Editors of 120 medical journals published worldwide with clinical relevance were surveyed; the response rate was 54%. Eighty per cent of respondents reported that their journal offered journalists at least one of press releases, access to full‐text articles, or press conferences. Editors whose journals used the practices in conjunction with an embargo reported higher‐quality news coverage than editors of journals that did not, but editors and journalists held differing views about the justifications for the specific practice known as an embargo. 相似文献
18.
19.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of Pakistani Medical Journals using the principles of citation analysis. METHODS: References of articles published in 2006 in three selected Pakistani medical journals were collected and examined. The number of citations for each Pakistani medical journal was totalled. The first ranking of journals was based on the total number of citations; second ranking was based on impact factor 2006 and third ranking was based on the 5-year impact factor. Self-citations were excluded in all the three ratings. RESULTS: A total of 9079 citations in 567 articles were examined. Forty-nine separate Pakistani medical journals were cited. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association remains on the top in all three rankings, while Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons-Pakistan attains second position in the ranking based on the total number of citations. The Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences moves to second position in the ranking based on the impact factor 2006. The Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad moves to second position in the ranking based on the 5-year impact factor. CONCLUSION: This study examined the citation pattern of Pakistani medical journals. The impact factor, despite its limitations, is a valid indicator of quality for journals. 相似文献