共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Research on publication and citation patterns generally focuses on prolific or highly cited authors or on highly ranked programs. This study investigates the work and influence of a cross-section of library and information science (LIS) researchers at various stages of their academic lives, using a random sample of faculty members at programs accredited by the American Library Association. The analysis shows that the number of publications increases steadily as faculty rank advances. Assistant professors publish more conference papers and fewer journal articles, a pattern that is reversed with associate and full professors. Researchers used Web of Science® and Google™ Scholar to determine the influence of the publications. Web of Science reported no citations for most LIS faculty publications. With its broader scope, Google Scholar located more citations and revealed that the works of professors are cited significantly more frequently than publications by assistant or associate professors. When faculty profiles are compared by type of program, faculty members at schools granting doctoral degrees publish significantly more than their counterparts at schools where there is no doctoral program or where the doctoral degree is offered jointly with other academic units. When the comparison is made across ranks, full professors publish significantly more than faculty members at other ranks. There is no significant difference between assistant and associate professors. 相似文献
2.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
3.
Witold Kieńć 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):125-131
This article analyses attitudes of academic authors toward open access (OA) and the frequency of choosing OA publication venues. The research looks particularly at differences between authors based in countries with a gross domestic product per capita less or greater than US$18,000 (called periphery and core countries, respectively). The data were obtained with an online survey sent to 107,296 scholars listed on the mailing lists belonging to De Gruyter Open from December 2015 to January 2016. A total of 1,012 responses were received. Authors from the periphery countries publish their articles in gold OA more often and they also pay OA publication fees equally often as those based in the core countries. The reasons for that are complex, involving both their preference to publish in OA and the composition of the publishing market in the periphery. 相似文献
4.
While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model. 相似文献
5.
实行优先数字出版对于作者、读者、期刊出版方及国家科研发展都具有重要意义.我国实行优先数字出版的期刊越来越多,但与此同时出现了诸多乱象.对优先数字出版的认识不足、期刊出版方的管理制度不严、数据库的监管不严及行业标准的缺失是造成乱象的根源.期刊出版方在规范优先数字出版方面需要明确4 个要素: 概念、DOI 认证、版本的设置和优先出版文献的规范引用.此外,期刊出版方、数据库方和管理方应充分发挥自身力量推动优先数字出版有序、健康发展. 相似文献
6.
7.
Book editors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Book editors in the social sciences and humanities play an important role in their fields but little is known about their typical publication and collaboration patterns. To partially fill this gap, we compare Flemish editors and other researchers, in terms of career stage, productivity, publication types, publications with domestic and international collaboration as well as the number of (international or all) unique co‐authors, co‐editors and associated book chapter authors. The results show that editors are mostly established researchers, especially in the social sciences, produce more book chapters and monographs than do other researchers, and are more productive. Nevertheless, editors collaborate less than do other researchers, both in terms of publications and in number of co‐authors. Including book chapter authors in the editors' collaboration networks makes those networks substantially larger, demonstrating that editors do not mainly call upon authors from their existing collaboration network when choosing book chapter authors in the edited books. Finally, editors seem to co‐author with their book chapter authors slightly more often after the publication of the edited book than before. 相似文献
8.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
9.
Fang-Yi Flora Wei 《Qualitative Research Reports in Communication》2016,17(1):102-111
When African American professionals become the majority (e.g., historically Black colleges and universities—HBCUs), whether they and White professors would perceive different challenges in class is unknown. Qualitative findings revealed that White professors considered their professional image as “well-learned” and “intelligent” in the HBCU, whereas African American professors perceived their credibility as dependent on their work experience. In addition, the “call response” communication strategy and classroom tardiness were two cultural shocks encountered by White professors. However, unlike PWIs, the HBCU culture facilitated students’ use of professional titles when addressing White and African American female participants. 相似文献
10.
11.
Accurate measurement of research productivity should take account of both the number of co-authors of every scientific work and of the different contributions of the individuals. For researchers in the life sciences, common practice is to indicate such contributions through position in the authors list. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to bibliometric ranking lists for scientific productivity when the number of co-authors or their position in the list is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian university professors working in the life sciences, with scientific production examined over the period 2004–2008. The outcomes of the study lead to a recommendation against using indicators or evaluation methods that ignore the different authors’ contributions to the research results. 相似文献
12.
[目的/意义] 以武汉大学和南京大学在图书情报研究领域的发文作者及其发文数量为研究对象,识别两机构内部合作网络的结构特征及差异,挖掘合作潜力,为增强作者之间的合作交流提供借鉴,以期帮助该领域更好地发展。[方法/过程] 建立次作者与第一作者之间的有向合作网络,统计两机构的合作构成,通过社会网络分析Pajek软件将合作网络关系可视化,同时进行三方关系组的特征分析。[结果/结论] 经分析发现武汉大学更倾向双人合作发文,次作者多与高产作者合作,网络有汇聚倾向,缺乏次作者之间的合作;南京大学该领域学者倾向于独立发文,更多作者作为第一作者加入合作网络,使网络向外部扩张,第一作者之间缺乏合作。 相似文献
13.
14.
Scientists from universities are becoming more proactive in their efforts to commercialize research results. Patenting, as an important channel of university knowledge transfer, has initiated a controversy on potential effects for the future of scientific research. This paper contributes to the growing study on the relationship between patenting and publishing among faculty members with China's evidence in the field of nanotechnology. Data from top 32 most prolific universities in patenting are used to examine the relationship, consisting of 6321 confirmed academic inventors who both publish and patent over the time period 1991–2008. By controlling for heterogeneity of patenting activities, patenting experience, institutional affiliation and collaboration with foreign researchers, the findings in China's nanotechnology generally support earlier investigations concluding that patenting activity does not adversely affect research output. Patenting, however, has negative impacts on both quantity and quality of university researchers’ publication output, when the assignee lists include corporations or scientists themselves. 相似文献
15.
《Library & information science research》2014,36(3-4):192-202
In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country's level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors' scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors' names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience. 相似文献
16.
David Nicholas Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Eti Herman Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):205-217
This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. 相似文献
17.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE Carol TENOPIR Eti HERMAN 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(2):121-134
The paper provides the results of the first phase of the research project Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition. It provides for an examination of the behaviours and attitudes of academic researchers as producers and consumers of scholarly information resources in the digital era in respect to how they determine authority and trustworthiness in the sources they use, cite, and publish in. The first phase of the study utilized focus groups to formulate research questions for the project as a whole. It provided the direction for the literature review, interviews, and questionnaires studies that would follow. Fourteen focus groups were held in the UK and US in order to obtain this information. A total of 66 science and social science researchers participated. The main findings were: (a) researchers play down difficulties of establishing trustworthiness, not because there are none, but because they have well‐developed methods of establishing trust; (b) citation‐derived metrics are becoming more important in regard to where researchers publish; (c) social media are ancillary to research, but are used for promotion of research and idea generation; (d) researchers are suspicious and confused about open access, but less so if produced by a traditional publisher; (e) there was a uniformity of perceptions/behaviour of researchers irrespective of differences in subject, country, and age; (f) although some early career researchers behave the same as their more senior colleagues this is because of a fear of the system: they actually think differently. 相似文献
18.
Carrie P. Mastley 《期刊图书馆员》2017,73(3-4):339-351
This article presents a survey study of social media and information behavior research published from 2008 to 2015 by way of bibliometric principles. Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were used in order to determine the publication rate, established researchers, impact, productivity, and thematic areas of selected papers. The results show a dearth of published works and a low level of established authors; however, the results also indicate high rates of impact, especially in relation to information seeking and information sharing studies. Overall, this study serves as a springboard for new scholarly inquiries in order to further develop research in the field. 相似文献
19.
20.
Li LI 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(3):187-190
University journals in China exist primarily to showcase the academic research achievements of the university from which they originate. Although they do publish peer‐reviewed articles, their management, distribution, and editorial processes are different from those of regular academic journals. Because they are on campus, the editors of university journals can use face‐to‐face communication to help their authors to revise their papers. To maximize the efficiency of this communication, editors need to prepare well before giving such guidance in order to minimize publication delay, to provide useful guidance to groups of authors, and to improve their own editorial abilities and knowledge. 相似文献