共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 649 毫秒
1.
中国科技期刊开放存取出版现状 总被引：33，自引：1，他引：33
基于《2005年版中国科技期刊引证报告》所收录的1608种我国科技期刊,搜索并统计分析了我国科技期刊的开放存取出版(open access publishing,OAP)现状.结果表明:我国OA期刊已具有一定的数量规模(143种),但部分期刊OA出版的持续性较差,且大都为单刊OA,难以形成信息集成的优势;医学、生物学、农业科学和化学领域中OA期刊的数量相对较多,并且,在同领域中OA期刊的引证影响明显高于非OA期刊.认为我国的相关部门不仅要致力于组建稳定可靠的、有较大信息量的OA期刊网站,而且要关注学术论文的开放存档(open archive). 相似文献
2.
3.
Over 660 Chinese researchers were questioned about their scholarly use, citing, and publishing and how trust is exercised in these key activities. Research showed few signs of new forms of scholarly usage behaviour taking hold, despite multiple opportunities afforded by Science 2.0 developments. Thus, for determining trustworthiness for usage purposes, the most important activity was reading the abstract. In terms of citations, citing the seminal source was the most common activity. In contrast, citing non‐peer reviewed sources, such as the social media, was not thought acceptable. For publishing, relevance to the field was the most important factor when choosing a place to publish. Comparisons were made with a study of 3650 international researchers, which employed the same methods and questions. The main differences between Chinese and international researchers were that the former (a) rated abstracts more highly, (b) took into account impact factors more when citing and publishing and (c) were much more likely to be influenced by institutional directives when placing their articles. 相似文献
4.
Eun-Young Julia Kim 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2018,34(4):554-567
This study reports how internationalization of academic knowledge is reflected in the language choice of Korean academic journals across disciplines and examines perceptions and practices of eighty two faculty from various disciplines at three Korean universities concerning publishing in English journals. The results indicate that natural science has the highest percentage of English-medium journals whereas those in humanities and social science predominantly use Korean as a medium of publication. Similar disciplinary patterns are observed in the responses to survey questions about frequency of publication as well as desire and preference for publishing papers in English. The biggest motivation for Korean scholars to publish in English was the desire to reach global scholarly communities. Implications of these findings are discussed. 相似文献
5.
G. Chandler 《International Information and Library Review》2013,45(3):237-264
A questionnaire survey of researchers engaged in seven scientific disciplines was conducted to identify preferred information channels and to determine interdiscipline variations in communication behaviour of Croatian scientists. The article also addresses the problem of the foreign language barrier and the visibility of Croatian science at an international level.The findings indicate that journal articles with their accompanying lists of references are the most important source of information in all the disciplines surveyed, while on-line searching was ranged rather low.Differences between pure, applied and social disciplines were identified in the domain of informal communication and in the publishing of the research results. Contacts with colleagues outside one’s organization appeared to be an important element in information retrieval, while informal dissemination of information is mostly performed internally. Except for physicists, participation in international scientific communication is rather unsatisfactory. 相似文献
6.
Not so different after all: Malaysian researchers' cross‐discipline view of quality and trustworthiness in citation practices 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Abdullah Abrizah David Nicholas Abdullah Noorhidawati M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura Fathiah Badawi 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):165-172
This paper reports a survey on citation behaviour of Malaysian researchers. It is part of a wider study gauging quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication in the emerging digital environment. The survey questionnaire was distributed between 1 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. A total of 391 respondents, from four research areas (humanities, life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences) completed the questionnaire. The finding indicated that motivations for citing were complex and multi‐faceted, but in all four disciplines, researchers cite a work because they regard it as an authoritative and trustworthy source, which provides a context or building block to their own research. Although researchers have moved from a print‐based system to a digital one, it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. Peer reviewed journals are still the most influential. Open access journals will be cited if they have been peer reviewed. Citing on the basis of high altmetrics and other social judgements, such as mentions, likes, and use, was not prevalent. Measures of establishing trust and authority do not seem to have changed profoundly in Malaysia. 相似文献
7.
科研人员接受OA知识库的影响因素分析--一项基于先导访谈的探索性研究 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
通过对13位中国科研人员的先导访谈,发现促进科研人员接受OA知识库的影响因素有:认为利用OA知识库能够扩大论文的影响力;出版速度更快;"先发表再评审"机制可以避免传统同行评审的某些弊端;出于对知识共享的信念。而阻碍科研人员不接受OA知识库的影响因素则包括:对OA知识库认知不够;担心论文质量得不到保证;担心会破坏与传统期刊的关系;担心论文被他人剽窃;认为OA研究成果尚未得到同行和现行学术评价体系的认可。 相似文献
8.
台湾地区大学图书馆电子书使用现况调查 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
由于数字出版的发展,电子书已在台湾的大学及技专校院图书馆占重要地位。为了解大学师生对这些电子书的使用状况,台湾学术电子书联盟于2010年进行了大规模的使用调查。调查问题包括：大学师生是否使用过图书馆的电子书,使用频率为何,透过何种管道查询电子书,使用电子书的意愿为何,使用电子书的动机为何,使用电子书遇到的问题及需要协助的困难为何,哪些是用户重视的电子书质量及功能,对于台湾学术电子书联盟引进的电子书满意度如何。调查采用在线问卷,共有91个学校,26,120位教职员生填答。调查发现,大学教师、研究员及研究生使用过电子书的比例高达六成以上;在同时有纸本书及电子书的情况下,半数以上的教师、研究员及研究生会优先选用电子书,但大学生仍喜爱纸本图书;对于电子书的质量,用户重视的是全文影像是否清晰、搜寻功能是否良好、使用接口是否易于操作、浏览方式是否便利、全文阅读方式是否符合需求等。另外,找不到所需的电子书,是读者最常遇到的困扰,显示图书馆的电子书种类仍不足以应付使用者的需求。 相似文献
9.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(1-2):147-152
Patterns of the publishing of papers in journals by Indian space technologists and their use and citation were studied Pearson correlation coefficient has been calculated to find out the correlation and to test the null hypothesis that there is no correlation among publishing in journals, citing from journals and use of journals by a defined set of researchers. A slight positive correlation between citing from journals and publishing in journals is indicated by the study. It is concluded that a more tightly controlled study with a larger and homogeneous sample might result in a better correlation. 相似文献
10.
《Library & information science research》2014,36(3-4):192-202
In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country's level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors' scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors' names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience. 相似文献
11.
Scholarly publishing scams and predatory journals are emerging threats to academic integrity. During the last few years, the number of bogus journals has dramatically increased, defraud authors by promising fast review and prompt publishing. The current research investigates the contribution of Iranian researchers in predatory open-access journals in 2014. In this research, a total of 21,817 articles published by 265 journals from Beall’s list of predatory standalone journals were investigated. Although Beall’s weblog was taken offline on January 15, 2017, data was collected between January and March 2016 when his weblog was accessible. Results of the study revealed that Iranian researchers have contributed to 1449 papers from 265 journals, ranked this country as having the second largest contributor after India. Surprisingly, institutions with the highest share of publication in predatory journals are among the most reputable and well-known universities of the country. Un-vetted papers published in predatory journals can hurt individuals’ reputation and be a base for future low-quality research in Iran and other world countries. To avoid being victimized by questionable journals, researchers should be more familiar with scholarly publishing literacy skills to recognize and avoid publishing scams. 相似文献
12.
通过中国知网收集国内20所医学院校相关信息,调查分析2006—2010年各院校发表科技论文的情况,各院校主办科技期刊的状况,拥有两院院士、长江学者情况以及国家级重点学科建设情况,比较各院校论文发表比例,分析各院校主办科技期刊及其与拥有两院院士、长江学者数量以及国家级重点学科建设的相关性。结果表明:重点学科论文在校内科技期刊发表的比例平均仅占25.45%,有10所院校重点学科论文80%以上发表在校外期刊,而有8所院校的学报刊发表本校重点学科论文不足10%,仅有3所院校超过30%;各院校拥有两院院士、长江学者数量与重点学科建设具有相关性(rs=0.706, rs=0.679,均P＜0.01),重点学科建设则与科技期刊的创办密切相关(rs=0.614, P＜0.01)。认为高校科技期刊特别是高校学报的功能与定位需要改革,高校科技期刊社与专家学者应共同努力提高高校科技期刊的影响力。 相似文献
13.
Faye A. Chadwell 《资料收集管理》2013,38(2):69-78
This paper provides information on a research project undertaken at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville to study publications by the campus researchers with an emphasis on the STEM (agricultural sciences, physical science, biological sciences, engineering and mathematics, etc.) disciplines at the macro level for a 3-year period. The overall objective of the study was to provide evidence-based data of periodical use to assist with collection decisions and to identify collection strengths at the university level. We used the Web of Knowledge database (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index) to identify the periodical literature in which our researchers published and those that they cite in their publications. We also determined the extent to which our researchers are publishing in and citing periodicals from the Elsevier, Wiley, and IEEE journal packages. A methodology for extracting citations from Web of Knowledge into an Excel spreadsheet is also provided. 相似文献
14.
[目的/意义]调研分析化学领域科研数据知识库现状,让科研人员了解化学领域数据知识库的概况,为其选择合适的数据知识库发表科研数据提供参考;从图书馆为科研人员提供服务的角度,探索基于化学领域科研数据发表的数据服务.[方法/过程]通过re3data.org、Databib、OAD 3个数据知识库的注册和目录系统,调研化学领域科研数据知识库的创建国家、建立时间、知识库的类别、存储数据的化学领域以及知识库的开放情况,对专门针对化学学科数据建立的知识库服务特点进行总结,并选取3个典型的数据知识库--Cambridge Structural Database、ChemSpider和ChemSynthesis,深度分析化学数据知识库的服务内容.[结果/结论]化学领域科研数据知识库的数量较多,建设国家较为集中,学科领域分布较为广泛,开放程度不尽相同. 相似文献
15.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(4):102746
PurposeThis mixed-methods study integrates bibliometric and altmetric investigation with a qualitative method in order to assess the prevalence and societal-impact of Open-Access (OA) publications, and to reveal the considerations behind researchers' decision to publish articles in closed and open-access.Design/methodology/approachThe bibliometric-altmetric study analyzed 584 OA and closed publications published between 2014 and 2019 by 40 Israeli researchers: 20 from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and 20 from SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) discipline. We used a multistage cluster sampling method to select a representative sample for the STEM disciplines group (engineering, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics), and for the SSH disciplines group (sociology, economics, psychology, political science, and history). Required data were extracted from Scopus and Unpaywall databases, and the PlumX-platform. Among the 40 researchers who were selected for the bibliometric-altmetric study, 20 researchers agreed to be interviewed for this study.FindingsComparing bibliometrics and altmetrics for the general publications did not reveal any significant differences between OA and closed publications. These were found only when comparing OA and closed publications across disciplines. STEM-researchers published 59 % of their publications in OA, compared to just 29 % among those in SSH, and they received significantly more bibliometric and altmetric citations from SSH OA publications and from their own closed-access publications. The altmetrics findings indicate that researchers are well acquainted and active in social media. However, according to the interviewees, there is no academic contribution for sharing research findings on social-media; it is viewed as a “public-service”. Researchers' primary consideration for publishing in closed or OA was the journal impact-factor.Research limitations/implicationsOur findings contribute to the increasing body of research that addresses OA citations and societal-impact advantages. The findings suggest the need to adopt an OA-policy after a thorough assessment of the consequences for SSH disciplines. 相似文献
16.
Since its inception in 2007, Springshare's LibGuides has become a popular content management system (CMS) with academic libraries. The challenges of managing LibGuides content through a cohesive content strategy have not been well documented. The researchers conducted a survey of academic libraries that were using the LibGuides platform in Fall 2019 to determine how institutions are managing content challenges. Of 120 respondents, only 53% of the respondents indicated that their institutions had content guidelines that LibGuides authors were expected to follow. The top three most observed elements of these content guidelines were page design (80%), content reuse policies (77%), naming conventions (73%), and navigation (3%). 15% of respondents' institutions did not review guides once they were published. Of those that reviewed guides post-publication, authors (84%) most frequently reviewed their own guides. These findings imply that LibGuides are largely cared for on an honour system. Guidelines tend towards quantifiable elements and omit more abstract concepts. 相似文献
17.
Abstract as a promotional genre has been an increasing interest in recent years, leading to an intriguing debate on the objectivity of scientific writing. The present study investigated the promotion and caution in research article abstracts through the use of positive, negative and hedge words across disciplines and rankings based on a large and principled dataset (more than 12.6 million words). The corpus was designed and built with full consideration of representativeness, structure, balance, and size in terms of discipline and ranking. The results showed that positive words were more frequently used than negative words in terms of both discipline and ranking, positive and negative words were more frequently used in hard sciences than those in soft sciences and high ranking journals than those in low ranking journals, and hedge words were more frequently used in high ranking journals and soft sciences. Further investigation also found a complexity of frequency patterns when two disciplines were broken down into specific categories. The more frequent use of positive words in abstracts to promote scientific research was discussed from the perspective of disciplinary knowledge construction in addition to the publication bias, the outcome reporting bias, and universal linguistic positivity bias. 相似文献
18.
[目的/意义]充分掌握欧美高校图书馆出版服务保存策略的特点及其发展趋势，为国内高校图书馆出版服务提供参考。[方法/过程]以美国图书馆出版联盟发布的《图书馆出版名录》（2014-2018）的数据为基础，结合网络调查和文献调研，采用比较分析法和辩证分析法，对近年来欧美高校图书馆出版服务的保存策略进行分析和研究。[结果/结论]结果表明：①欧美高校图书馆出版服务保存策略种类繁多，近一半的图书馆同时采用多种保存策略；②多年的发展已经形成了主流保存策略；③内部保存、联盟保存成为重要的保存方式；④云存储、第三方保存特点明显。国内高校图书馆选择保存策略时，应充分考虑出版的文献类型、采用的出版平台、参加的保存联盟等因素。 相似文献
19.
科技期刊加大专刊出版力度的可行性与现实意义 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
针对目前科技期刊对专刊出版重视程度不足的问题,从客观需求、特殊机遇、人才储备3个方面探讨了加大专刊出版力度的可行性,并深入分析了专刊对期刊拓展稿源、培育核心编委、创造经济效益的积极作用。指出借鉴国外经验,加强专刊策划与出版,充分挖掘其学术价值和传播价值,对国内科技期刊意义重大。 相似文献
20.
[目的/意义]分析国内与国际跨学科研究人员文献需求的特点并比较异同,为跨学科研究的文献保障工作提供依据,以促进跨学科研究的国际合作。[方法/过程]使用引文分析法,以1998-2016年发表在CSSCI和Web of Science上南海争端相关文章的期刊与图书类引文为样本,从年代分布、被引频次、学科分布与出版机构等方面,分析国内与国际南海争端研究引文的特点与差异。[结果/结论]国内研究对较新中文期刊和经典外文图书依赖度高,中文图书缺乏国际认同。南海争端研究整体偏向人文社会科学领域,但国际研究较国内研究在引文学科的分布上更加广泛与均衡。权威、主流出版社是国内与国际研究共同的选择,少数研究机构出版社开始进入了跨学科研究者的视野。 相似文献