共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 921 毫秒
1.
开放存取期刊的影响力分析 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
从著名期刊影响力分析工具（JCR）、OA期刊目录、OA期刊出版者和著名的图书情报学OA期刊D-Lib Magazine的质量这四个角度分析开放存取期刊的影响力。具体来说,首先以JCR数据为依据绘制2004-2006年来ISI收录的生物学OA期刊的影响因子等指标随时间变化图。其次,利用著名OA期刊目录Open Science Directory统计最新版ISI收录的生物学期刊中OA期刊的种数。再次,根据著名生物医学OA期刊出版机构BioMed Central的统计数据分析其出版的OA期刊影响力。最后,以图书情报学领域著名的OA期刊D-Lib Magazine为例进行具体阐述。 相似文献
2.
Oxford University Press moved one of its most prestigious journals, Nucleic Acids Research (NAR), to a full open access (OA), author‐pays publishing model in January 2005. A deep log analysis study was carried out in order to determine the impact of this move to OA on the use and users of the journal. Surprisingly the findings showed that although there was a 143% increase in use from early 2003 to January 2005, it was search engines and robots that accounted for a high proportion of the increased use. Robots were responsible for half of sessions in the second quarter of 2005, compared to 1% in the second quarter of 2003. 相似文献
3.
基于开放牛津期刊的开放获取引用优势分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文以"开放牛津"的93种混合型期刊为研究样本,对其2009年刊载的全部论文的被引频次进行统计分析,以验证关于开放获取引用优势(OACA)的三个假设:存在开放获取引用优势;不同学科的OACA不同;OACA与期刊影响因子有相关性。通过研究发现:开放牛津期刊存在OACA,开放牛津期刊中的OA论文与非OA论文相比有138.87%的引用优势;五个学科领域的开放牛津期刊的OACA存在差异(其中人文科学不存在OACA);开放获取引用优势与期刊影响因子之间具有显著的逆函数关系,即随着期刊影响因子的增长,开放获取引用优势呈下降趋势。 相似文献
4.
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sally Morris 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(2):115-126
There has been much debate recently about whether publishers' prices are too high, and what publishing a journal article really costs. Publication of the article in a journal is only one part of the cost of research communication; first of all there are the costs of research and writing, then the costs of peer review, editing and publication, and finally the costs of acquisition by the library, management, storage, reading by the end user and long‐term preservation. Several studies have been conducted of these different costs; the results are summarized and the potential impact, both on costs and on sources of funds, of moving to an alternative, ‘author‐funded’ open access model is considered. 相似文献
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(3):101429
Despite the recent moving towards open access trend in the academic community, both restricted and open access journals continue to coexist. New journals need to choose their journal types (open versus restricted access), while the incumbent journals may change their journal types. To better understand how the academic community is shaped by journals’ choices of journal types, we constructed a game-theoretical model of journal competition with endogenous journal qualities and journal types. We found that journals’ equilibrium quality and types vary by article processing charge (APC) and journals’ preference for quality. Compared to the case that both journals are open access, a competition among journals of different types leads to higher journal quality standards chosen in equilibrium when APC is modest. Therefore, in the academic community where the research quality is measured by the highest quality of the journals therein, journals of different types guarantee a good degree of knowledge diffusion with a high quality. 相似文献
10.
Mary WALTHAM 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(2):136-143
The paper summarizes the findings of a pilot study for the National Humanities Alliance, including the methodology, research tools, analysis, and initial conclusions about the publishing business of eight association published humanities and social sciences journals in the context of a move to an open access (author/producer pays) publishing model. The eight disciplines represented by these journals are modern languages, history, religion, economics, sociology, anthropology, politics and statistics. Specific tools were developed for the study to enable like‐for‐like comparison of the journals. Detailed information on current trends in revenue, costs, and surplus is included. Significant differences between HSS and STM journals are reviewed. Open access to research articles on publication as the ‘gold’ author/producer‐pays approach would not be sustainable for this sample of HSS journals for reasons articulated in the report. Further studies using the tools and methodology developed are required to broaden and confirm these results. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
14.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(3):102516
This study aims to present a quantitative analysis of open access (OA) journals in the field of medicine indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The bibliographic data for this study was extracted from DOAJ and inserted into an Excel sheet for analysis. The retrieved data was analyzed by using different quantitative techniques to disclose the findings. The findings disclosed that 3627 OA journals related to the field of medicine are indexed in DOAJ, which represents a substantial increase from just 8 in 2002. Moreover, most of the medical journals (n = 1874 or 51.7%) do not charge any Author Processing Charges (APC) from the authors. The United Kingdom leads the world with 878 (24%) open access journal titles, whereas English is the top language of publication with 3149 (86.8%) OA journals in medicine. Elsevier is the leading publisher with 236 (6.5%) journal titles. A majority of the journals (n = 1595 or 44%) follow a double blind, peer-review process. About 2046 (56.4%) journals publish their contents under the Creative Commons (CC BY) licensing model to enable access and use of scholarly content for educational purposes. 相似文献
15.
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
16.
依据《Budapest Open Access Initiative》,确定我国开放存取型学术期刊判定标准,以CNKI所收录的1 094种医学期刊为范围,从中遴选国内医学领域开放存取型学术期刊;将传播学传播效果评价理论融入期刊评价之中制定评价指标体系,并统计相关数据,采用定性与定量相结合的方式,从认知效果、态度效果、行为效果三个层面对我国医学领域开放存取型学术期刊传播效果进行实证研究。 相似文献
17.
Students and scholars can take full advantage of Open Access journals only if libraries make them available through mechanisms that are familiar to patrons. This study examines the extent to which American liberal arts colleges have provided access to Open Access journals through their journal title lists (Serials Solutions, Ex Libris, etc.) and their online public access catalogs (OPACs). While 57 percent of the colleges provide access to at least 90 percent of the journals in our sample, 20 percent of the colleges provide access to fewer than 20 percent of the journals. Large and high-impact journals are especially likely to appear in libraries' catalogs and journal lists. There is no systematic trend by publication fee status or country of publication, however. The study concludes with a discussion of the strategies libraries can use to select Open Access journals and add them to their collections. 相似文献
18.
Simon Wakeling Valérie Spezi Jenny Fry Claire Creaser Stephen Pinfield Peter Willett 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):301-311
This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits. 相似文献
19.
Business faculty were surveyed to determine their attitudes toward institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, and open access journals. The majority of faculty was unaware of institutional repositories at their local institutions. However, approximately one third are using disciplinary repositories and are receiving encouragement from their departments to do so. Likewise, many faculty are unaware of open access journals. Open access journals are seen as lacking prestige and being lower quality publications in the business field due to the lack of prestigious publishers and editors. Many faculty believe their prestige would fall if they published in an open access journal. 相似文献
20.
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