Growth of predatory open access journals: implication for quality assurance in library and information science research

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philips Oluwaseun Ayeni ◽  
Niran Adetoro
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Usage Patterns

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria. Findings The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given. Practical implications It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad. Originality/value This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Visibility and growth of LIS research publications: a Scopus based analysis of select open access journals during 2001 to 2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Nilaranjan Barik ◽  
Puspanjali Jena
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Underdeveloped Countries ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Scopus Database

Purpose This study aims to establish an idea on visibility and growth of research publications of select Library and Information Science (LIS) open access journals indexed in Scopus database during the period 2001-2015. Design/methodology/approach The study covers its scope to the research publications published during the period 2001-2015. All retrieved data were analyzed using bibliometric methods. The data of the select journals were searched in Scopus database using the name of the journal as search term in source of the database. Findings The results of the study reveal that visibility of LIS research articles in country based, university/ institution based, types of document based, authors based and citation based is significant. Authors from 83 countries and 990 universities/ institutions across the world have published their research in such LIS open access journals. The American and European countries are the leaders among all contributing countries and “Article” is the most popular types of documents with 61.37 per cent publications. The citation impact of publications shows an average 8.08 citations per publication. Originality/value The study raises concern on the global visibility of LIS research publications. Authors from underdeveloped countries do not prefer to publish their publications in open channel. Also government and other research bodies of these countries do not give proper weightage to the publications in open access journals. So, the study intends to assess the visibility of LIS research publications and their growth pattern.

scholarly journals LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
English Language ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Different Types

A Review of: Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002   Abstract  Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases. Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles. Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals. The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles. Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues. This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period.  Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%). Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

Open source journals of library and information science: a bibliometric study

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil Kumar Satpathy ◽  
Rabindra K. Maharana ◽  
Ashok Kumar Das
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
One Year

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to investigate the scholarly communications in open access journals of library & information science and to study the key dimensions of these publications. Design/methodology/approach – For the analysis of the study, top ten open access journals of 2011, which were indexed in SCOPUS, have been selected. The authors employed necessary bibliometric measures to analyze different publication parameters. Findings – It is found that the contribution of articles in these top ten open access journals in 2011 is good, i.e. 37.3 percent. Single authored papers are found to be the highest (40.48 percent), followed by two-authored and then three-authored papers. The degree of collaboration is found to be between 0.33 and 0.8. The numbers of citations used in the paper are also good (average 21.48 percent paper). In regards to ranking of country productivity, the USA topped the list. Research limitations/implications – This paper focuses on the publication traits of top ten open access journals of library & information science of the year 2011. A total of 373 papers from these ten journals are analyzed. Further studies can include more open access journals of this field for a period of more than one year. Practical implications – Scholars can benefit from insights into the scholarly contributions of top ten open access journals of 2011 in the field of library & information science. Originality/value – This paper provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing of open access journals of library & information science. It can help the researchers, professionals, teachers and students to understand the top open access journals, valuable contributions, highly cited journals, country productivity, and other parameters.

scholarly journals Librarian Authors Appear to Favour Open Access Journals, while Academic Authors Appear to Favour Non-Open Access Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 176-178
Author(s):  
Michelle DuBroy
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Common Type ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Academic Authors

A Review of: Chang, Y.-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Abstract Objective – To compare the characteristics of authors publishing in open access and non-open access library and information science (LIS) journals. Design – Comparative analysis of published journal articles. Setting – Academic journals. Subjects – Articles published in selected LIS journals between 2008-2013. Methods –  Journals included in the Library Science and Information Science category in the 2012 edition of Journal Citation Reports and those listed in the Library and Information Science category of the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 2013 were included in the analysis. Articles were examined and coded for author occupation, academic rank, and type of collaboration. Main Results – The author analyzed 1,807 articles from 20 open access journals and 1,665 articles from 13 non-open access journals. An unknown number of articles were excluded because they lacked required author information. Over half (53.9%) of the authors who published in the open access journals were practitioners. Over half (58.1%) of the authors who published in the non-open access journals were academics. Librarian-librarian collaboration was the most common type (38.6%) of collaboration found in the open access journals. Academic-academic collaboration was the most common type (34.1%) of collaboration found in the non-open access journals. Collaboration between librarians and academics was seen in 20.5% of open access articles and 13.2% of non-open access articles. Conclusion – In general, librarian-authored research was found more often in open access journals, while the “latest research topics and ideas” (p. 14) were found most often in non-open access journals.

Journal packing density of library and information science research journals at the global level: a study

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Pandita ◽  
Shivendra Singh
Keyword(s):  
Packing Density ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
The Usa

Purpose This study aims to find out the average journal packing density (JPD) of Library and Information Science (LIS) research journals published across the world. The concept, JPD, means the average number of research articles published by a research journal in one volume. Accordingly, the undergoing study evaluates the average number of research articles published in each volume of each research journal published in the field of LIS at the global level. Some other key aspects evaluated include the number of LIS research journal publishing countries, average JPD of LIS research journals at the continental level, etc. Design/methodology/approach This study is purely based on secondary data retrieved from SCImago, which is SCOPUS data. Keeping in view the objectives of this study, the data about research articles published in all LIS research journals during the period 2015 through 2019 were retrieved to undertake the study. Findings From the data analysis, it emerged that 256 research journals duly indexed by SCOPUS are published in the field of LIS across 36 countries. In all 48,596 research articles were published from 2015 to 2019 in these research journals at an average of 44.71 research articles per journal per volume. More than 75% of LIS research journals are published from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, the USA and the UK. Research journals published from the USA have higher JPD of 53.09 research articles per journal per volume, which is 18.74% higher than the average global JPD of LIS research journals. 50% of LIS research journal publishing countries are from Europe and the majority 52.55% LIS research articles were published in European LIS research journals. The average JPD of LIS research journals published from North America is 51.73 research articles per journal per volume, which is the highest across continents. Research limitations/implications Standardization of JPD of research journals irrespective of the subject discipline they are published in is important for many reasons and the foremost being, such standardization helps in keeping at bay the predatory research journals, which normally float such packing density norms, with the sole aim to earn money in the shape of manuscript handling charges, thereby publishing a far greater number of research article in each issue of a journal than the average research articles published by a research journal. Originality/value Very few studies have been conducted around the concept JPD, especially by the authors of this particular study. This study has however been particularized to the LIS subject discipline, while the findings add to existing lot of study already undertaken, hence outcome can be generalized.

scholarly journals Editors View the Continuous Publication Model as a Satisfactory Alternative for Open Access LIS Journals

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Current Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Volume Model ◽  
Satisfaction Rate ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
High Satisfaction ◽  
High Satisfaction Rate

A Review of: Cirasella, J., & Bowdoin, S. (2013). Just roll with it? Rolling volumes vs. discrete issues in open access library and information science journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1086 Abstract Objective – To understand the prevalence of, motivations for, and satisfaction with using a rolling-volume publishing model, as opposed to publishing discrete issues, across open access academic journals in library and information science. Design – A 12 question survey questionnaire. Setting – English-language, open access library and information science (LIS) journals published in the United States of America. Subjects – A total of 21 open access LIS journals identified via the Directory of Open Access Journals that were actively publishing, and that also met the authors’ standard of scholarliness, which they established by identifying a journal’s peer-review process or other evidence of rigorous review. Based on responses, 12 journals published using discrete issues, while 9 published as rolling volumes or as rolling volumes with some discrete issues. Methods – In late 2011, the study’s authors invited lead editors or primary journal contacts to complete the survey. Survey participants were asked to identify whether their journal published in discrete issues, rolling volumes, or rolling volumes with occasional discrete issues, with the latter two categories combined as one for ease of results analysis. Survey logic split respondents into two groups, either discrete-issue or rolling-volume. Respondents in both categories were posed similar sets of questions, with the key difference being that the questions directed at each category accounted for the publication model the journals themselves identified as using. Editors from both groups were asked about the reasons for using the publication model they identified for their journal: within the survey tool, authors provided 16 potential reasons for using a discrete-issue model, and 13 potential reasons for using a rolling-volume model. Respondents from both groups were asked to mark all reasons that applied for their respective journals. The survey also included questions about whether the journal had ever used the alternate publishing model, the editor’s satisfaction with their current model, and the likelihood of the journal switching to the alternate publishing model in the foreseeable future. Main Results – The authors collected complete responses from 21 of the original 29 journals invited to participate in the study, a response rate of 72%. For the 12 journals that identified as using discrete issues, ease of production workflow (91.7%), clear production deadlines (75.0%), and journal publicity and promotion (75.0%) were the three most common reasons for using a discrete-issue model. For the nine journals using rolling volumes, improved production workflow (77.8%), decreased dependence on production deadlines (77.8%), and increased speed of research dissemination (66.7%) were the three most common reasons cited for using a rolling-volume model. Findings show that overall satisfaction with a journal’s particular publication model was a common factor regardless of publishing model in use, though only the rolling-volume editors unanimously reported being very satisfied with their model. This high satisfaction rate is reflected in editors’ positions that they were very unlikely to switch away from the rolling-volume method. While a majority of editors of discrete-issue journals also reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current model, the mixed responses to whether they would contemplate switching to the alternate model suggests that awareness of the benefits of rolling-volume publishing is increasing. Conclusion – Researchers discovered a greater incidence of rolling-volume model journals with open access LIS journals than anticipated, suggesting that this is an area where additional research is necessary. The relative newness of the rolling-volume model may be a contributing factor to the high satisfaction rate among editors of journals using this model, as journal editors are likely to be more deliberate in selecting this model over the traditional discrete-issue publishing model. Workflow and production practices were identified as key characteristics for selecting a publishing model regardless of the model selected, and therefore this is another area in need of further investigation.

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

scholarly journals Eye tracking in library and information science: a literature review

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haakon Lund
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Reference Databases ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Tracking Technology

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review of the application of eye-tracking technology within the field of library and information science. Eye-tracking technology has now reached a level of maturity, which makes the use of the technology more accessible. Subsequently, a growing interest in employing eye tracking as a methodology within library and information science research must be anticipated. Design/methodology/approach The review follows the guidelines set in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Two reference databases are searched for relevant references: Library and Information Science Abstracts and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts. The main selection criteria are peer-reviewed literature that describes the experimental setting, including which eye-tracking equipment was used, the number of test persons and reports on the eye-tracking measures. Furthermore, this study will report which other methods were applied in combination with eye tracking. Findings The number of published research utilizing eye-tracking technologies within library and information science (LIS) is still limited although an increase in the use of eye-tracking technologies is observed during recent years. Originality/value To the knowledge of the author, this is the first systematic review on eye-tracking technology and application in LIS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document