共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 609 毫秒
1.
Key points
- The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
- The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
2.
Melissa L. Rethlefsen Alicia A. Livinski 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2013,101(1):55-62
Objectives:
The research identified the publication types and ages most frequently cited in the infectious diseases literature and the most commonly cited journals.Methods:
From 2008–2010, 5,056 articles in 5 infectious diseases journals cited 166,650 items. Two random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,060) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,060) from the citations to journal articles. For each sample citation, publication type and date, age of cited item, and inclusion of uniform resource locator (URL) were collected. For each item in the cited journal articles sample, journal title, publication date, and age of the cited article were collected. Bradford zones were used for further analysis.Results:
Journal articles (91%, n = 963) made up the bulk of cited items, followed by miscellaneous items (4.6%, n = 49). Dates of publication for cited items ranged from 1933–2010 (mean = 2001, mode = 2007). Over half (50.2%, n = 483) of cited journal articles were published within the previous 5 years. The journal article citations included 358 unique journal titles.Discussion:
The citations to current and older publications in a range of disciplines, heavy citation of journals, and citation of miscellaneous and government documents revealed the depth and breadth of resources needed for the study of infectious diseases.Highlights
- Literature on infectious diseases is multidisciplinary, encompassing medical specialties, public health, and the medical sciences.
- Infectious disease publications cite journal articles more than 90% of the time. Cited journal articles greatly range in age at citation: more than a quarter were over 10 years old.
- Infectious disease citation patterns resemble clinical medicine citation patterns more than public health citation patterns.
Implications
- Infectious disease professionals need access to general medicine titles as well as infectious disease, immunology, virology, microbiology, and public health literature.
- Librarians serving infectious disease researchers and practitioners should provide access to older materials, especially journal back files, to support the cyclical needs of their patrons.
3.
Dennis W Fell Judy F Burnham Melanie J Buchanan Heidi A Horchen Joel A Scherr 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2011,99(3):202-207
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to identify (1) core journals in the literature of physical therapy, (2) currency of references cited in that literature, and (3) online databases providing the highest coverage rate of core journals.Method:
Data for each cited reference in each article of four source journals for three years were recorded, including type of literature, year of publication, and journal title. The journal titles were ranked in descending order according to the frequency of citations and divided into three zones using Bradford''s Law of Scattering. Four databases were analyzed for coverage rates of articles published in the Zone 1 and Zone 2 journals in 2007.Results:
Journal articles were the most frequently cited type of literature, with sixteen journals supplying one-third of the cited journal references. Physical Therapy was the most commonly cited title. There were more cited articles published from 2000 to 2007 than in any previous full decade. Of the databases analyzed, CINAHL provided the highest coverage rate for Zone 1 2007 publications.Conclusions:
Results were similar to a previous study, except for changes in the order of Zone 1 journals. Results can help physical therapists and librarians determine important journals in this discipline.Highlights
- More cited references were published in the last eight years studied than in any previous full decade.
- Physical Therapy, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (APMR), and Spine were the most frequently cited titles. Previous studies found APMR to be the most cited journal.
- CINAHL provided the highest coverage rate for the most commonly cited titles, with MEDLINE and EMBASE providing the best coverage for the next group of titles.
Implications
- Health sciences librarians and clinicians can use these results to identify important journals for developing collections and determining the need for access to back issues of journals.
- Multiple databases are needed for comprehensive coverage of the physical therapy discipline
Implications
- Health sciences librarians and clinicians can use these results to identify important journals for developing collections and determining the need for access to back issues of journals.
- Multiple databases are needed for comprehensive coverage of the physical therapy discipline
4.
Janet A Crum 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2011,99(4):290-296
Objectives:
The purposes of this study were: to determine the number of articles requested by library users that could be retrieved from the library''s collection using the library catalog and link resolver, in other words, the availability rate; and to identify the nature and frequency of problems encountered in this process, so that the problems could be addressed and access to full-text articles could be improved.Methods:
A sample of 414 requested articles was identified via link resolver log files. Library staff attempted to retrieve these articles using the library catalog and link resolver and documented access problems.Results:
Staff were able to retrieve electronic full text for 310 articles using the catalog. An additional 21 articles were available in print, for an overall availability rate of nearly 80%. Only 68% (280) of articles could be retrieved electronically via the link resolver. The biggest barriers to access in both instances were lack of holdings and incomplete coverage. The most common problem encountered when retrieving articles via the link resolver was incomplete or inaccurate metadata.Conclusion:
An availability study is a useful tool for measuring the quality of electronic access provided by a library and identifying and quantifying barriers to access.Highlights
- Lack of holdings, including access to recent articles restricted by embargoes, was the most common barrier to locating full text, accounting for over 90% of all identified problems.
- Availability rates for electronic articles varied by year of publication and by the database in which the OpenURL request originated.
- Link resolver error rates varied widely based on the source of the request and frequently resulted from incomplete or inaccurate metadata.
Implications
- An availability study is an inexpensive, practical tool for assessing the quality of electronic access to journal articles.
- The results of an availability study can help libraries identify barriers to access and thereby allocate limited resources to areas that will provide the most benefit to users.
- Link resolvers might be more accurate if the quality of metadata in OpenURLs was improved and the behavior of full-text targets was standardized.
- Collection and acquisition problems: The library may not subscribe to the desired journal, or the article and/or journal may be unavailable for some other reason.
- Cataloging and holdings problems: The journal may be cataloged or indexed incorrectly, or the library''s holdings data may be wrong.
- Technical problems: Problems may occur with the journal provider''s site or the library''s proxy server.
- gather actual user requests (or simulate them)
- try to fill those requests using the same tools and methods a user would use
- record what happens
- analyze the results
5.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):163-168
Key points
- Concerns about a crisis in monograph publishing date back to at least the 1990s, and for traditional journal publishing at least a decade.
- Two key trends behind concerns over book and journal models are pressures on funding and the emergence of open access.
- Despite predictions of a revolution, the academic publishing sector has proved remarkably resilient in adapting to market changes.
- Whilst showing some support for ‘open science’, even early career researchers remain committed to traditional publishing models.
- The growth in scholarly collaboration networks and in sharing across traditional boundaries is the more likely disrupter of traditional publishing.
6.
Ana G Ugaz 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2011,99(2):145-152
Objective:
The paper analyzes the journal evaluation criteria used to create the third edition of a core list of veterinary serials to determine the impact of each criterion on the final composition of the list in order to assess the value of using multiple criteria in creating a core list.Methods:
Three additional lists were generated from criteria that were previously combined to prepare the third edition of the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials”: a list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations, another list based on journals selected by veterinary librarians, and a list based on both indexing coverage and scholarly rank. The top fifteen journals in each of the three lists were then compared to reveal potential biases. Subject representation on the full lists generated by each of these methods was also compared.Results:
The list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations exhibited a focus on clinically relevant titles. The list based on veterinary librarian recommendations resulted in the broadest subject coverage. The list based on indexing and scholarly rank, while emphasizing research titles, produced the largest number of unique titles.Conclusion:
A combination approach that includes objective evaluation measures and practical input, whether from librarians or discipline experts, can improve coverage and can result in a list that balances research-based with clinical practice journals.Highlights
- Analysis of criteria used to create the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials” reveals biases inherent in different quality measures that result in different journal emphases.
- Use of indexing or scholarly rank is often thought of as a limiting factor, but in this study, the journals that were scored solely on these two criteria resulted in the inclusion of the greatest number of unique titles.
- Librarian input produced the broadest subject coverage of any list.
Implications
- An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies reveals clear evidence for using both objective and subjective criteria in developing a core list. Collection development decisions would equally benefit from this approach.
- Comparison of the top titles on core lists underscores the value of input from practitioners or discipline experts in collection decisions.
- Bias toward clinical content revealed in the input from the veterinary specialty organizations indicates the importance of understanding the purpose and compilation methods used in creating recommended lists before using them in collection development.
7.
Objectives:
The study updates Schloman''s 1997 study, “Mapping the Literature of Health Education.” The authors identify an updated list of core health education journals and determine the coverage of these journals by electronic indexes.Methods:
Citations from four source journals for the years 2006 to 2008 were analyzed using the established methodology of the “Mapping the Literature of Allied Health Project.” The cited journals were divided into three zones of productivity by using Bradford''s Law of Scattering.Results:
There were 19,907 citations in 602 source articles. Journal articles were the most commonly cited format type. Of the 1,896 journal titles cited, 20 (1.1%) made up the core journals. Together, the fields of medicine, health education, and psychology accounted for 85.0% of the journals in the core. Self-citation was found to be a common practice in the source journals. Scopus had the broadest journal coverage of the indexes examined.Conclusions:
The results of this study provide a new picture of the health education literature: The volume has grown significantly, cites older materials, and relies less on sexual health journals and more on psychology journals.Highlights
- Three of the four health education journals in this study showed a statistically significant increase in the number of journal articles published since 1993.
- The majority of core journals in the field are from medicine (35.0%), health education (30.0%), and psychology (20.0%), with the largest change in core journal make-up being an increase in psychology journals.
- Scopus provided the most thorough coverage of the cited journals, followed by MEDLINE, Social Sciences Citation Index, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text.
Implications
- Reference librarians should instruct users on more sophisticated ways to manage the growing volume of the health education literature.
- Collection development librarians may need to purchase and retain older materials to support health education research.
- Librarians should purchase and direct patrons to a variety of databases to completely cover the literature of medicine, health education, and psychology.
8.
George Kerscher 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(1):83-85
Key points
- Accessibility of publications in academia is a non‐negotiable legal requirement.
- The accessibility of your journal or other scholarly publication is the most important design consideration in your workflow.
- EPUB Accessibility 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 provide a clear publishing pathway.
- Consider the readability chain: Any link can result in accessibility failure but an unbroken chain will benefit all readers.
9.
10.
11.
Ana G Ugaz C. Trenton Boyd Vicki F Croft Esther E Carrigan Katherine M Anderson 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2010,98(4):282-292
Objective:
This paper presents the methods and results of a study designed to produce the third edition of the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials,” which was established by the Veterinary Medical Libraries Section in 1976 and last updated in 1986.Methods:
A set of 238 titles were evaluated using a decision matrix in order to systematically assign points for both objective and subjective criteria and determine an overall score for each journal. Criteria included: coverage in four major indexes, scholarly impact rank as tracked in two sources, identification as a recommended journal in preparing for specialty board examinations, and a veterinary librarian survey rating.Results:
Of the 238 titles considered, a minimum scoring threshold determined the 123 (52%) journals that constituted the final list. The 36 subject categories represented on the list include general and specialty disciplines in veterinary medicine. A ranked list of journals and a list by subject category were produced.Conclusion:
Serials appearing on the third edition of the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials” met expanded objective measures of quality and impact as well as subjective perceptions of value by both librarians and veterinary practitioners.Highlights
- The 123 journals on the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials” include 117 journals with a decision matrix score of 15 points or higher, with an additional 6 journals included for more complete subject representation.
- Subject categories with the greatest number of journals are internal medicine, food animal medicine, and research.
- Updates for the third edition of the “Basic List” include 59 new titles and 13 new subject categories.
Implications
- The third edition of the “Basic List” provides a useful collection development and assessment tool for veterinary libraries, as well as general libraries with a need to develop a core collection of veterinary resources.
- The decision matrix approach, using standard quantitative and focused qualitative measures, provides a useful methodology for creating core lists in other disciplines.
12.
13.
Objective: The research analyzes usage of a major biomedical library''s pre-1993 print journal collection.Methodology: In July 2003, in preparation for a renovation and expansion project, the Biomedical Library at the University of California, San Diego, moved all of its pre-1993 journal volumes off-site, with the exception of twenty-two heavily used titles. Patrons wishing to consult one of these stored volumes could request that it be delivered to the library for their use. In the spring of 2006, an analysis was made of these requests.Results: By July of 2006, 79,827 journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier had been requested from storage. The number of requests received declined with age of publication. The usage distribution exhibited a “long tail”: 50% of the 79,827 requests were for journal volumes published before 1986. The availability of electronic access dramatically reduced the chance that corresponding print journal volumes would be requested.Conclusions: The older biomedical print journal literature appears to be of continued value to the biomedical research community. When electronic access was provided to the older literature, demand for older print volumes declined dramatically.
Highlights
- Analysis of requests for stored biomedical journal volumes published prior to 1993 indicates that older biomedical journal literature receives substantial use: during this 3-year study, there were nearly 80,000 requests for journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier, with half the requests for volumes published from 1986–1992 and 40% of the request for volumes published from 1970–1985. These results indicate that retaining older print volumes, or providing easy access to the older literature through electronic journals or other means, will likely be required to meet user information needs.
- Use of older journal volumes varies by title and by user population, and a small number of journal titles were responsible for most of the use.
- Requests for older print biomedical journal titles dropped significantly when electronic access became available.
Implications
- Biomedical libraries should carefully consider implications of eliminating on-site access to older journal literature for users and budgets.
- Removing access to older journal literature may result in higher demand for interlibrary loan and document delivery services.
- Biomedical libraries can safely substitute reliable electronic access to older literature to meet ongoing needs for this information, thereby creating space for other purposes.
14.
Key points
- With increased pressure on longstanding society business models, society journal publishers must pursue more aggressive growth strategies to remain competitive.
- A practitioner‐focused book portfolio that translates research into practice offers an opportunity to establish an alternative revenue stream and an additional path for society member engagement.
- Societies are in a unique position to capitalize on their existing connections to industry via their membership base.
- Brief, easy‐to‐consume content and interactive tools are of the greatest appeal to the practitioner audience.
- Focusing on shorter, template‐driven formats and more frequent updates allows society publishers to develop content more rapidly and at lower cost.
- Challenges include incentivizing society members to author and review the content, identifying individuals who are capable of doing so, and obtaining adequate internal resources.
15.
Dean Hendrix 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2008,96(4):324-334
Objective:
The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact.Methods:
This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools (n = 123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10) average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed.Results:
Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n = 20) altered the analysis considerably.Conclusions:
Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school''s research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school''s research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.Highlights
- Principal components analysis discovered three clusters of variables: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity.
- The associations between size-independent measures (e.g., average number of citations/article) were more significant than associations between size-independent bibliometric measures and size-dependent (e.g., number of faculty) bibliometric measures and vice versa, except in the case of total National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.
- The factor coefficients, or loadings, for total NIH funding may associate more with the quality of research rather than the quantity of research.
- The removal of twenty outliers, fourteen highly productive or influential medical schools and six medical schools with relatively low research profiles, changed the results of the analysis significantly.
- This study''s broad institutional bibliometric data sets cannot be extrapolated to specific departments at the studied medical schools.
Implications
- Librarians, administrators, and faculty should use several methodologies in tandem with bibliometric data when evaluating institutions'' research impact and productivity.
- Health sciences librarians should not make use of university rankings materials lacking strong methodological foundations.
- This study''s bibliometric data may provide a starting point or point of comparison for future assessments.
16.
Alison Baverstock 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):65-68
Key points
- Although ‘peer review’ has quasi‐sacred status, times are changing, and peer review is not necessarily a single and uniformly reliable gold standard.
- For publishers, peer review is a process not an outcome.
- Academics understand peer review, but are often ignorant about the quality checking mechanisms within wider publishing.
- Self‐publishing has led to the much wider availability of publishing services – these now being used by all stakeholders in publishing.
- How should universities evaluate comment and ideas that were first disseminated within a non‐academic market?
- Rather than an upper house, is peer review today more of a galley kitchen?
17.
David Brown 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):237-243
Key points
- Trends point to increased democratization within STEM, driven by open access, Internet delivery, and digital natives.
- The current journal publishing system does not meet the needs of researchers who want timely access to the latest results.
- Demographic and sociological changes are likely to undermine the inherent conservatism of STEM.
- Traditional STEM systems ignore the latent market of knowledge workers, but new information services do not.
- Radical approaches to STEM are required if we are to respond to the ‘perfect storm’ of changing needs and expectations.
18.
19.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Marzena Świgoń Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):249-253
Key points
- Early career researchers (ECRs) consider journals the central form of communication – but are concerned about pressure to publish.
- ECRs want to share but currently accept the closed publishing system because of the need to build a traditional reputation.
- ECRs know – and appear to care – little about publishers but trust them as publishing and reviewing facilitators.
- Editors are criticized for not managing peer review with better selection of reviewers.
- Megajournals are not seen as the future journal form and criticized for lack of selectivity.
- ECRs want open access/science in principle but are circumspect about their contribution to it.
- ResearchGate is a key force for change as ECRs consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform.
20.
Joanne Gard Marshall Julia Sollenberger Sharon Easterby-Gannett Lynn Kasner Morgan Mary Lou Klem Susan K. Cavanaugh Kathleen Burr Oliver Cheryl A. Thompson Neil Romanosky Sue Hunter 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2013,101(1):38-46
Objective:
The research conducted a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library and information services on patient care.Methods:
The study used: (1) 2 initial focus groups of librarians; (2) a web-based survey of physicians, residents, and nurses at 56 library sites serving 118 hospitals; and (3) 24 follow-up telephone interviews. Survey respondents were asked to base their responses on a recent incident in which they had sought information for patient care.Results:
Of the 16,122 survey respondents, 3/4 said that they had definitely or probably handled aspects of the patient care situation differently as a result of the information. Among the reported changes were advice given to the patient (48%), diagnosis (25%), and choice of drugs (33%), other treatment (31%), and tests (23%). Almost all of the respondents (95%) said the information resulted in a better informed clinical decision. Respondents reported that the information allowed them to avoid the following adverse events: patient misunderstanding of the disease (23%), additional tests (19%), misdiagnosis (13%), adverse drug reactions (13%), medication errors (12%), and patient mortality (6%).Conclusions:
Library and information resources were perceived as valuable, and the information obtained was seen as having an impact on patient care.Highlights
- Library and information resources were perceived as valuable, and the information obtained was seen as having an impact on patient care.
- Electronic access to information resources from multiple locations has increased the ability of health professionals to use these resources for improved patient care.
- The roles of librarians are diversifying to include management of electronic resources, user instruction and support, specialized research and clinical information search services, and involvement in institution-level quality improvement.
- It is possible to conduct a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library services on patient care.
Implications
- Ongoing studies of the value and impact of library and information resources will be important for advocacy and quality improvement.
- Community-Based Participative Research methods hold promise as a way of ensuring the relevance of future research.