scholarly journals Periódicos da Ciência da Informação em acesso aberto: uma análise dos títulos listados no DOAJ e indexados na Scopus │ Open access journals in information Science: an analysis of the titles listed in DOAJ and indexed in Scopus

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Da Silva Neubert ◽  
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues ◽  
Luiza Helena Goulart
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Web Resources ◽  
Content Sharing ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Rss Feeds ◽  
E Mail

Resumo Analisa os periódicos em acesso aberto da área de ciência da informação listados no DOAJ e indexados na Scopus. Os objetivos específicos são: a) descrever os periódicos científicos da área de ciência da informação em acesso aberto, b) registrar a visibilidade dos periódicos e c) verificar o uso de recursos web. Os periódicos da área de ciência da informação são publicações criadas a partir de 1990 (93,33%) sem patrocínio, publicados na América e Europa (80%), em inglês (73,33%), e mantidos por universidades, institutos de fomento a pesquisa e por associações (86,67%). Possuem Ìndice H com média 8,47, e 40% dos títulos são classificados no Qualis. Quanto aos recursos web, 33,33% possui canal de notícias, 26,66% feeds RSS, 13,33% blogs e 6,67% página no Facebook. Em relação aos recursos para compartilhamento pelo leitor, os 13,33% cuja plataforma é o Scielo disponibilizam recursos para compartilhamento por e-mail e por widget.Palavras-chave periódicos científicos; Ciência da Informação; acesso aberto; bases de dados; visibilidade dos periódicos; recursos webAbstract Analysis of open access journals in the field of library and information science listed in DOAJ and indexed in Scopus. The specific objectives are: a) to describe the scientific journals in the field of information science open access, b) recording the visibility of the journals and c) to check the usage of web resources by the journals. The information science open access publications are mostly created starting from 1990 (93.33%), unsponsored, published in North America and Europe (80%), in English (73.33% ), and maintained by universities, institutes and research funding agencies and associations (86.67%). The H index has an average of 8.47, and only 40% of the titles are classified in Qualis. The actions associated with web: 33.33% have news, RSS feeds are 26.66%, 13.33% blogs and 6.67% have a page in Facebook. Regarding resources for content sharing by the reader, 13.33% is on the Scielo platform for sharing resources available by e-mail and widget. Keywords Scientific journals; Information science; Open Access; Databases; Visibility of journals; Web resources

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.

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.

scholarly journals Directory of Open Access Journals: A Bibliometric Study of Library and Information Science

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-255
Author(s):  
Kotti Thavamani
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
License Agreements ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Specific Distribution ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
Language Characteristics

This paper presents a bibliometric study of library-focused journals represented in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A total of 151 library and information science journals were examined related to a number of issues: subject-specific distribution of library journals, interdisciplinary aspects, country of origin, language-used and other language characteristics, numbers of titles first appearing in given years, publication fees, the existence of license agreements, and the types of organizations having journals in the Directory that focus on libraries or librarianship.

Prerequisite and awareness status of Web 2.0 applications in University Libraries of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Aziz Ur Rahman ◽  
Haroon Idrees ◽  
Arif khan
Keyword(s):  
Web 2.0 ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
University Libraries ◽  
Web 2.0 Tools ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ◽  
Rss Feeds ◽  
The University ◽  
E Mail

Purpose This study aims to explore the awareness status of Web 2.0 tools among library and information science (LIS) professionals in the University Libraries of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Design/methodology/approach The study used quantitative method to collect data from 73 LIS professionals in 18 public sector university libraries of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Inferential and descriptive statistical techniques were used to analyze data using SPSS. Findings It was observed from the findings that majority of LIS professional s possess good knowledge of MS Office; however, some senior librarians were less acquainted. Internet facility was available to 60 participants out of 66. Librarians were not familiar with many services of Web 2.0; however, Facebook, YouTube and Skype were most familiar among the librarians. Majority of the respondents had no experience of using podcasting, RSS feeds, LinkedIn, LibraryThing, Flickr and MySpace. On the other hand, e-mail services, Facebook and YouTube were founded to be the most commonly used Web 2.0 tools among respondents. Problems faced by majority of the respondents were power failure, lack of training, non-cooperation from higher authorities, low speed of internet and financial problems. Practical implications These research results can be very beneficial for the interested librarians in universities, when they plan to use Web 2.0 applications in their libraries. Originality/value This study presents an overall picture of Web 2.0 applications in university libraries of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and attempts to provide the readers with helpful information to better understand how their colleagues elsewhere are utilizing Web 2.0 tools in execution of library services.

scholarly journals Positioning Open Access Journals in a LIS Journal Ranking

2012 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-145 ◽  
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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document