Search results

A major problem in today’s scholarly publishing process is the long tails for the assignment of volume and issue numbers for approved articles. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which information science journals offer early view features and the effects of these features.

The study addresses three basic questions: Do the articles approved for publication in information science journals appear in the online platforms of these journals before the assignment of volume and issue numbers? How long do the articles wait in the online platforms before they get the volume and issue numbers? Is there a statistically significant relationship between the online accessing numbers of the articles before they are published and bibliometric indicators?

More than half of the information science journals complete the editorial process in reasonable durations and share new articles with their readers before publishing them. In some journals, there are articles that wait for more than a year to be assigned volume and issue numbers after the completion of the editorial process. There are statistically significant differences, in terms of both their impact factor and immediacy index values, between the journals that offer early view features and those that do not. Both the impact factor and the immediacy index values of the journals that provide early view are higher than the others.

Adopting the early view policy may significantly help increase the impact factor and immediacy index values of the journals, as well as the visibility of their contents

The answers to this study’s research questions offer a new perspective to overcome the challenges in the processes through which scientific products meet with their users.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between journal self‐citation and journal impact factor (JIF)/journal immediacy index (JII).

This research examined research papers in 20 key journals in environmental engineering with a publication year range of 1999 to 2008. The bibliographical information of cited references was obtained from the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science.

The findings indicated that JIF and JII values changed only slightly regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of self‐citations, suggesting that the influence of self‐citation on journals was insignificant. Consequently there is no need for evaluations to exclude journal self‐citations in journal or researcher evaluations. In addition the findings indicated that JIF and five‐year JIF were highly correlated, suggesting that it would not be necessary to extend the calculation of JIF to five years. Considering the cost in terms of time and effort, the two‐year JIF is sufficient in the discipline of environmental engineering.

This research provides a better understanding of journal self‐citations in journal or researcher evaluation with JIF and JII as indicators.

The 1960s saw the birth of what is now called “scientometrics”. One of the queries that arose then related to citations of previous literature. Was recent literature cited proportionately more than older literature? Studies by Price, along with that reprinted here, seemed to indicate that the answer was “yes”. This “immediacy effect”, as it was labelled, could be measured in quantitative terms, but how to do so required some thought. For example, what was the best form of index for representing immediacy, and what errors were involved in estimating the effect? Discussions of the usage of past literature could have practical implications for libraries. One question, therefore, was what implications, if any, citation studies had for the provision of journals to library users. On the scientometrics side, there were such questions as why an immediacy effect occurred and to what extent it could be discerned in different subject areas. This article surveys attempts to examine questions like these over the period from the 1960s to the present day, updating an article published in Journal of Documentation in 1967.

The purpose of this paper is to measure the fully open access (OA) contents cited by researchers from top three universities in the USA (MIT, CIT and Stanford) in the field of physics. This study aims to identify the core fully OA journals widely used by researchers in the field of physics and evaluate the cited fully OA resources by applying various scientometric parameters to check the credibility of these OA resources.

The PhD theses awarded during 2014 in the field of physics and hosted in the institutional repositories of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), California Institute of Technology (CIT) and Stanford University, respectively, were selected and scanned to extract references of sources cited. Later on, Google Scholar was used to identify source journals of the extracted references. Only source “journals” were selected and analyzed; rest of other sources were ignored; accordingly, toll-access and OA journals were segregated, as such the OA-cited journals could be identified. The scientometric performance indicators were used to check the quality of identified core fully OA journal cited by USA researchers in the field of physics.

The results of this study show that fully OA resources are sufficiently used by the researchers of top three academic institutions of the world/USA. The study was also successful in identifying the core fully OA journals; besides it also reveals that these fully OA journals are highly impressive as showed by performance indicators applied. The major finding of the research includes the identification of top ten fully OA journals along with their impact based on different scientometric parameters like number of times cited, impact factor, h-index, immediacy index, impact per publication and Scimago Journal Rank (SJR).

Because of a limited corpus of literature scrutinized in this study, the findings of the study may or may not represent the global picture in the field of physics.

The paper confirms that fully OA resources usage trend is positively increasing day by day, and there are vast numbers of core OA journals with high-quality impact available for use to researchers around the world. Besides, the paper also affirms the view that there should be more publicity of fully OA literature around the globe to reap the benefits of the same.

This paper will assist researchers, libraries, information centers and research and development institutions to take a cost-efficient approach in using and disseminating the scholarly literature.

This paper is one of the first pieces of research conducted on electronic theses and dissertation (ETD’s) in top three universities of the USA, to check usage percentage and quality of fully OA journal resources cited by doctoral students in the field of physics.

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the status and quality of library and information science (LIS) open-access (OA) journals in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI).

The study selected 86 source journals of LIS in the SSCI as a sample and measured their status of open access. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to analyze 36 OA journals of 86 source journals, especially their production capability, academic influence and network communication ability.

The results indicate that OA journals have become an increasingly important part of LIS journals. Production capability, academic influence and network communication ability are important factors affecting the quality of OA journals. These three evaluation indicators of LIS OA journals are high, but many still have room for improvement.

As the paper is limited by collecting data, the indicators of OA journals’ quality are not all-around. So, they cannot reflect the quality of LIS OA journals. In the selection of the evaluation method, the evaluation results are limited because only one AHP method is used.

The research on evaluation of OA journals can help library and scientific research personnel use OA journals effectively. Identifying key factors on evaluation can help researchers to construct OA journals better.

The research on OA journals’ quality can also promote the study on OA process in academic circles and promote the communication, development and utilization of academic information. Such research can also enrich the theory of OA, and provide some new perspectives for the study of journals’ evaluation.

This paper measures the quality of LIS OA journals by analyzing production capability, academic influence and network communication ability. Rather than the traditional research methods, the focus of this study is on the value of the Web as a source of impact indices. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

Symbols for concepts like ‘half life’, ‘impact factor’, ‘normalised impact factor’ and ‘immediacy index’ are proposed and formulas for the determination of their values are provided. The features of the concepts are also highlighted.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

The 1990s have seen a major expansion in both the interest in retailing as an academic research subject and in the availability of European retail academic journals. Using a bibliometric approach, this paper investigates the development of published academic retail research in these journals. It identifies different emphases within the retail journals and retail research. Overall, however, retailing is identified increasingly as a synthetic rather than an interdisciplinary subject. A gulf between the direction that European scholars and US scholars are following is considered.