Assessing number and quality of urology open access journals: 2011 to 2018

At a time of great dynamism among publishers of scientific publications, with the inevitability of Open Access and the ease of publishing online at low cost, it is possible to find publications with different levels of scientific respectability. In this context, the improvement of the quality of scholarly publications emerges as a critical element for publishers, authors and academic institutions, as well as for society in general. This opinion piece discusses Open Access journals with different levels of quality, focusing on the following quality-promoting measures: blacklists, author’s preparation, and institutional prevention. The analysis allows concluding that the open review will be one of the key elements in the process of clarification and promotion of the level of quality and consequent scientific respectability of each of the Journals, of the thousands currently existing, a number that is likely to increase.

Download Full-text

“Worth(less) papers” – are journal impact factor and number of citations suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists?

Nova prisutnost ◽

10.31192/np.16.2.10 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol XVI (2) ◽

pp. 369-388 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Aleksandar Racz ◽

Suzana Marković

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Academic Publishing ◽

Digital Repository ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

On Line ◽

Number Of Citations ◽

Journal Impact

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

Download Full-text

Status and quality of open access journals in Scopus

Collection Building ◽

10.1108/cb-02-2017-0007 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 155-162 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Design Methodology ◽

Subject Area ◽

Health Profession ◽

Average Quality ◽

Scholarly Journals ◽

Content Type ◽

Research Areas ◽

Open Access Journals

Purpose This study aims to provide an extensive overview of OA journals’ status and quality in 27 research areas based on all Scopus-indexed journals. It shows the volume of OA journals, proportion of publications in OA journals and the quality of these journals in comparison with subscription-based counterparts. Design/methodology/approach This research investigated 22,256 active peer-reviewed journals indexed by Scopus in 2015. Data were gathered using the Journal Metrics website. The current research adopted four indicators to compare the quality of OA and non-OA journals indexed in Scopus under each subject area, namely citedness rate, CiteScore, SNIP and SJR. Findings OA journals comprised approximately 17 per cent out of the total journals indexed by Scopus in 2015. The results revealed an uneven spread of OA journals across disciplines, ranged from 5.5 to 28.7 per cent. Studying the quality of journals as measured by CiteScore, SJR SNIP leads us to the finding that, in all research areas, except for health profession and nursing, non-OA journals attain statistically significant higher average quality than do OA journals. Originality/value Although OA publishing improves the visibility of scholarly journals, this increase is not always coupled with increase in journals’ impact and quality.

Download Full-text

Positioning Open Access Journals in a LIS Journal Ranking

College & Research Libraries ◽

10.5860/crl-234 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 73 (2) ◽

pp. 134-145 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jingfeng Xia

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Information Science ◽

Scholarly Communication ◽

Journal Ranking ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

High Quality Research ◽

H Index ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Information Professionals

This research uses the h-index to rank the quality of library and information science journals between 2004 and 2008. Selected open access (OA) journals are included in the ranking to assess current OA development in support of scholarly communication. It is found that OA journals have gained momentum supporting high-quality research and publication, and some OA journals have been ranked as high as the best traditional print journals. The findings will help convince scholars to make more contributions to OA journal publications, and also encourage librarians and information professionals to make continuous efforts for library publishing.

Download Full-text

A cohort study of how faculty in LIS schools perceive and engage with open-access publishing

Journal of Information Science ◽

10.1177/0165551519865481 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 016555151986548

Author(s):

Wilhelm Peekhaus

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Access Journal ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Free Access ◽

Research Journal ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Library And Information Studies ◽

Information Studies ◽

Similar Survey

This article presents results from a survey of faculty in North American Library and Information Studies (LIS) schools about their attitudes towards and experience with open-access publishing. As a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 2013, the article also outlines the differences in beliefs about and engagement with open access that have occurred between 2013 and 2018. Although faculty in LIS schools are proponents of free access to research, journal publication choices remain informed by traditional considerations such as prestige and impact factor. Engagement with open access has increased significantly, while perceptions of open access have remained relatively stable between 2013 and 2018. Nonetheless, those faculty who have published in an open-access journal or are more knowledgeable about open access tend to be more convinced about the quality of open-access publications and less apprehensive about open-access publishing than those who have no publishing experience with open-access journals or who are less knowledgeable about various open-access modalities. Willingness to comply with gold open-access mandates has increased significantly since 2013.

Download Full-text

Whitelists as blacklists: The use of external lists when evaluating scientific journals

Septentrio Conference Series ◽

10.7557/5.4250 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Gry Ane Lavik

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Simple Explanation ◽

Scientific Journals ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

The University ◽

Professional Impact ◽

Better Than

Watch the VIDEO here.NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data operates the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers on behalf of the University and Higher Education Council. The publishing arena for researchers is changing. Yet every researcher is responsible for publishing in channels that are serious and have a professional impact. At NSD we experience that there is a need for advice about where to publish and about how to recognize quality in new international publication channels. Much of the need for advice stems from the increase of new open access channels and the pressure towards publishing in these channels.The somewhat notorious Beall’s list closed down last year. All though controversial, this list was a useful tool to become aware of channels to check more closely. It also provided a useful checklist to use when evaluating OA-channels. So what to do with no such blacklist operating?* At the Norwegian register, we have come to believe that multiple whitelists can work in much the same way or even better than a blacklist. A simple explanation for this is that if a journal is not featuring on any whitelist, this says something about the quality of the journal in much the same way a blacklist does by including it. But there are fallacies and problems to be aware of when using this approach.The aim of this presentation is to problematize advantages and disadvantages connected to the use of whitelists as a form of quality control. To this end a description of how whitelists are used when evaluating channels for inclusion in the Norwegian register will form the basis for the presentation. The term “whitelist” is here used in broad sense, denoting a list that only includes journals after making some sort of positive judgement about the quality of the journal while leaving out journals considered of poor quality. The Norwegian register has recently entered a Nordic collaboration which gives access to compare with the Finnish and the Danish national lists of authorized research publication channels. A closer collaboration with Directory of Open Access Journals - DOAJ was also formally in place earlier this year. A description of the Nordic list project and some thoughts on the expected outcome of the collaboration will be part of the presentation.

Download Full-text

Reproducible and reusable research: Are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2588 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Nicole A Vasilevsky ◽

Jessica Minnier ◽

Melissa A Haendel ◽

Robin E Champieux

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Data Sharing ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Quality Of Data ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Biomedical Journals ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Require Data

Background. There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. Methods. The online author's instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. Results. 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing mark categories. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. Discussion. Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

Download Full-text

Indexing Open Access Law Journals…or Maybe Not

International Journal of Legal Information ◽

10.1017/s0731126500005539 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 38 (1) ◽

pp. 19-42 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Edward T. Hart

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Information Science ◽

Library Science ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

State University ◽

Science Journal ◽

Science Professor ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Or Groups

At the 2007 Charleston Conference, Elaine Yontz and Jack Fisher, library science professor and librarian respectively at Valdosta State University, gave a presentation on their study of indexing by the leading information science indexers of the seventy-eight open access journals (OAJ) listed for library and information science in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). They discovered that less than 47% of the journals listed in the DOAJ were indexed. Additional observations made were the relative newness of many of the library science journal titles listed in DOAJ, the breadth of languages in which OAJ were being published, and the quality of many of the publishers or groups behind the journals. Yontz and Fisher are concerned that American scholars overlook these potentially helpful journals because of the lack of indexing.

Download Full-text

Era baru publikasi di Indonesia: status jurnal open access di Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

Berkala Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi ◽

10.22146/bip.32920 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 133 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dasapta Erwin Irawan ◽

Juneman Abraham ◽

Mochammad Tanzil Multazam ◽

Cut Novianti Rachmi ◽

Indrya Mulyaningsih ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

World Bank ◽

Open Data ◽

Open Access Journal ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Analysis Technique ◽

The Government ◽

Quantitative Descriptive ◽

Scientific Fields

Introduction. The quality of journals in Indonesia is much criticized; however, the number of Indonesian journals that meet the criteria of Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ) is quite a lot. This study describes some facts of Indonesia’s publications based on DOAJ and World Bank data.Data Collection Method. Some filtering processes in DOAJ database were done based on sum of journals, scientific fields distribution, and Article Processing Charge (APC). Open data regarding research funds among countries in World Bank database were analyzed.Data Analysis. This study used quantitative-descriptive design with frequency analysis technique. Data visualization was done with R Statistical Computing and Google Sheets.Results and Discussions. In March 2017, there were 500 Indonesian journals (5th rank worldwide); 420 of them were in Indonesian covering more than 51,000 articles (7th rank). The top three fields were: education, Islam religion, as well as business and commerce. As much as 70% of the journals were free of APC. Science must prioritize inclusiveness and equality inline with the principles of originality and honesty.Conclusions. This study concludes that open access journals in Indonesia improves the accessibility, quality, and relevance of Indonesian research, which can be reused by communities, industries, and the government.

Download Full-text

Reproducible and reusable research: Are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2588v1 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Nicole A Vasilevsky ◽

Jessica Minnier ◽

Melissa A Haendel ◽

Robin E Champieux

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Data Sharing ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Quality Of Data ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Biomedical Journals ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Require Data

Background. There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. Methods. The online author's instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. Results. 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing mark categories. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. Discussion. Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

Download Full-text