Search results

This study applies D3.js and social network analysis (SNA) to examine the impact of collaboration patterns, research productivity patterns and publication patterns on the Ministry of Education (MOE) evaluation policies across all Management Information Systems (MIS) departments in Taiwan.

This study first retrieved data from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST) website from 1982 to 2015, the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) website, the Web of Science (WOS) website and Google Scholar. Then it applied power-law degree distribution, cumulative distribution function, weighted contribution score, exponential weighted moving average and network centrality score to visualize the MIS collaborations and research patterns.

The analysis concluded that most MIS professors focused primarily on SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-/core indexed journals after 2005. Professors from public universities were drawn to collaboration and publishing in high-quality-based journals, while professors from private universities focused more on quantity-based publications. Female professors, by contrast, have a slightly higher single-authorship publication rate in SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-indexed journals than do male professors. Meanwhile, professors in northern Taiwan emphasized quantity-based journal publications, while a focus on quality was more typical in the south. Furthermore, National Cheng Kung University has the most single-authorship or intrauniversity publications in SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-/core journals, and National Sun Yat-Sen University published more SSCI-indexed articles than SCIE-indexed articles. All of these findings show that there is an explicit relation between MOE evaluation policies and MIS faculty members' collaboration/publication strategies.

The above findings explain how MOE evaluation policies affected MIS faculty members' collaboration and publication strategies in Taiwan, and the authors hope that such findings can constitute a resource for understanding and characterizing networking with MIS departments in Taiwan.

Five years ago a friend whose business has the word “women” in its title began referring to me requests she received for information about a large area encompassing women's issues, herstory, Women Studies, feminism, nonsexist education, nontraditional employment, reentry persons, comparable worth, health, portrayal of women in literature, scientific developments by and affecting women, etc. They came from feminist and sexist people of all ages throughout the world. Most, however, were American women attempting to bridge the information gap and to counteract misinformation and lack of information about and affecting females. This eventually evolved into a non‐profit service through which I responded directly to inquiries.

The various indexes published by the H.W. Wilson Company are now helping a fourth generation of library users to find articles in hundreds of periodicals and journals. One Wilson index in particular, the Social Sciences Index (SSI), has undergone major revamping in recent years. It was originally called the International Index (1907–1965). In April, 1965 it became the Social Sciences and Humanities Index; then in April, 1974 it split to form separate indexes for each area, simultaneously expanding the scope of coverage of both parts.

The study aims to assess the journal packing density (JPD) of the research journals published across different subject discipline at the global level. The concept of JPD is aimed to compute the average number of research articles published per volume or per issue of a research journal in any given subject discipline. The study also discusses about the leading research journals publishing countries and continents across the world and their average JPD. An attempt has also been made to identify the leading research counties having maximum JPD in any given subject discipline.

The study covers 27 major research subject disciplines widely popular all across the globe. To undertake the present study, data were retrieved from SCImago Journal and Country Ranking.

In all, 36,081 research journals were indexed by Scopus across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level till 2015. During the period 2013-2015, 11,023,122 research articles were published in 36,081 research journals across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level at an average of 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. This means the average JPD of the research journals at the global level is 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. Chemistry, physics and astronomy and multidisciplinary journals are the three leading subject disciplines to have the maximum JPD, namely, 266.66, 253.92 and 242.53 research articles per journal per volume. JPD of research journals published in the sciences is higher than the JPD of research journals published in the social sciences and humanities. Business, management and accounting, social sciences and arts and humanities are three subject disciplines having lowest JPD, namely, 44.26, 35.68 and 32.66 research articles per journal per volume, respectively. China, Ireland and The Netherlands recorded the highest average JPD in the research journals published from these counties, namely, 213.39, 178.44 and 135.31 research articles per journal per volume, respectively.

Countries from where a lesser number of research journals are indexed by the popular indexes, such as Scopus, Web of Science, etc., face greater pressure of publishing. To ooze out this pressure, there is need to index more and more research journals from these countries and that can be done only by improving and maintaining the research standard over a period.

The study is original and the first of its kind undertaken at the global level across all the major subject disciplines.

The aim of this paper is to conduct a study regarding the indexing of open access journals in three large, commercially available full‐text aggregation databases and using Journal Citation Reports Metrics File to further explore the journals that were being indexed.

Using publicly available database title lists produced by the full‐text aggregation database publishers, titles and title metadata were analyzed and compared to data from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) metrics file in order to investigate the availability of open access (OA) scholarly journals. Subject Category Impact Factor Ranking Quartiles and Percentiles (SCIFRQs and SCIFRPs) were used as part of this investigation as indicators of the research significance of these OA journals.

Results showed that very small percentages of open access journals were indexed in each of the full‐text aggregators studied. A total of 7.9 percent of titles included in journal citation reports were OA journals. This study also reports the averaged SCIFRPs of OA journals for all subject areas with more than five journals included in JCR. The average SCIFRP for OA journals included in JCR was 34.49 percent and the averaged SCIFRP for all OA journals indexed by full‐text aggregation databases being studied is 41.2 percent. This study points to large differences in the rate of indexing OA journals by different databases.

Unlike past studies into the indexing of OA journals, this is not limited to selected subject areas and shows indications of the research prominence of OA journals with JCR derived data.

This article aggregates and reviews the disparate information needed to assess journal literature related to communication disorders both directly and peripherally. An extensive analysis was performed using a list of 40 journals on communication disorders derived from a review of selected libraries’ journal collections, and then compared to entries in respected indexes and bibliographies covering this discipline. The result of this analysis is a list providing comprehensive information including scope and coverage, publisher information, indexing/abstracting data, and online availability for those 40 journals. In addition, a survey was conducted among communication disorders faculty in the City University of New York (CUNY) to investigate which professional journals are used regularly for current awareness and for clinical/research information. The information presented in this article should be of interest to faculty, students and practitioners in this area, as well as subject librarians responsible for collection development.

Performing efficient literature searches and subscribing to the most comprehensive databases for interdisciplinary fields can be challenging since the literature is typically indexed in numerous databases to different extents. Comparing databases will help information professionals make appropriate choices when teaching, literature searching, creating online subject guides, and deciding which databases to renew when faced with fiscal challenges. The purpose of this paper is to compare databases for searching the chemical engineering literature.

This paper compares journal indexing and search recall across seven databases that cover the chemical engineering literature in order to determine which database and database pair provide the most comprehensive coverage in this area. It also summarizes published, database comparison methods to aid information professionals in undertaking their own comparative assessments.

SciFinder, Scopus, and Web of Science, listed alphabetically, were the leading databases for searching the chemical engineering literature. SciFinder-Scopus and SciFinder-Web of Science were the top two database pairs. No single database or pair provided 100 percent complete coverage of the literature examined. Searching a second database increased the recall of results by an average of 17.6 percent.

The findings are useful since they identify “best bets” for performing an efficient search of the chemical engineering literature. Information professionals can also use the methods discussed to compare databases for any discipline or search topic.

This paper builds on the previous literature by using a dual approach to compare the coverage of the chemical engineering literature across multiple databases. To the author’s knowledge, comparing databases in the field of chemical engineering has not been reported in the literature thus far.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the obsolescence process of Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) as well as the effects of this decline in the coverage of disciplines and journals, and their influence in the representativeness of organizations.

The total number of records and those belonging to the most reputable journals (1,762) and organizations (346) according to the Field Rating indicator in each of the 15 fields and 204 sub-fields of MAS, have been collected and statistically analysed in March 2014, by means of an automated querying process via http, covering academic publications from 1700 to present.

MAS has no longer been updated since 2013, although this phenomenon began to be glimpsed in 2011, when its coverage plummeted. Throughout 2014, indexing of new records is still ongoing, but at a minimum rate, without following any apparent pattern.

There are also retrospective records being indexed at present. In this sense, this research provides a picture of what MAS offered during March 2014 being queried directly via http.

The unnoticed obsolescence of MAS affects to the quality of the service offered to its users (both those who engage in scientific information seeking and also those who use it for quantitative purposes).

The predominance of Google Scholar (GS) as monopoly in the academic search engines market as well as the prevalence of an open construction model (GS) vs a closed model (MAS).

A complete longitudinal analysis of disciplines, journals and organizations on MAS has been performed for the first time identifying an unnoticed obsolescence. Any public explanation or disclaimer note has been announced from the responsible company, something incomprehensible given its implications for the reliability and validity of bibliometric data provided on disciplines, journals, authors and congress as well as their fair representation on the academic search engine.

The purpose of this paper is to relate the problems identified about scholarly journal publishing in Malaysia to establish motivation for the system development; to describe the design of MyCite, a Malaysian citation indexing system and to highlight the added value to journals and articles indexed through the generation of bibliometrics performance reports.

The system uses a rapid prototyping method, modeling the functions identified in the Web of Science databases and Scopus, as the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia requires the system to be ready within a year, mainly to help improve the quality, accessibility and performance of Malaysian scholarly journals.

The paper shows the relational tables and module functions in MyCite; highlights the value added to bibliographic data through performance reports of authors, journals, institutions, country and bibliographical control of Malaysian journals; and provides performance tables of top authors, rank list of 75 journals by yearly impact factor, and other bibliometric indices.

The paper highlight the problems in gaining access to full contents of journals, authors' adoption of variant names, and the vast variations in referencing style adopted by publishers, which may result in inaccurate counting and lost citations.

The strength of MyCite is in its reference editor module, which is a programme that segments article references into manageable chunks that helps speed up the data preparation for citation counting. MyCite improves the availability and visibility of Malaysian journals, enriches national research content, and provides better knowledge of national research outputs funded by universities and research institutions.

When library users wish to know more about a book before actually reading it, or simply want to learn what others who have read a book think about it, they have at their disposal a well established body of book review literature. Since these reviews are scattered throughout the periodical media, there has long been a need for a tertiary medium that indexes the reviews in periodicals. The Book Review Digest (BRD), published by the H.W. Wilson Company, had been the sole source of citations to book reviews for a relatively general public until 1965 when Gale Research Company commenced publication of Book Review Index (BRI). Current Book Review Citations (CBRC), also published by the H.W. Wilson Company, joined the field in 1976. Other more subject‐specific book review indexes are currently available. The need for these specialized indexes in any particular library can easily be determined by the special needs of the library's clientele.