Search

This paper analyses the conference papers published by double first‐class universities from mainland China between 2006 and 2019. The main findings are as follows: first, the number of conference papers from different double first‐class universities varied greatly, with the annual numbers of papers in the China Proceedings of Conferences Full‐text Database (CPCD) and in the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) fluctuating during this period. Second, most of the top 10 disciplines of the papers in the CPCD and CPCI were in the natural sciences, with only two in the social sciences. The CPCD papers and CPCI papers had some overlap in their disciplinary distributions. Third, the CPCD and CPCI papers differed little in total number, with the number of CPCI papers being slightly higher than the number of CPCD papers. With the introduction of new regulations from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST), there will likely be an increase in the number of Chinese‐language conference papers in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though not rare in the gatekeeping practices of journals, editorial bias in China has received scant scholarly attention. Drawing on in‐depth interviews with 15 academics and 10 editors in the field of education and collecting data on more than 1,522 scholarly articles published by the Chinese journal Educational Research, we assessed the causes and consequences of editorial bias in a subset of the education journals covered by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). Our findings indicate that the editorial biases revealed in some top‐tier Chinese education journals were associated mainly with academic fame, rank, and affiliation as well as personal relationships described by the term guanxi. The causes of these biases include the desire to secure the status of CSSCI‐listed journals, short‐staffed editorial teams, and an inadequate peer‐review system. Further, we found these biases to be associated with three particular negative consequences: slowing the professional development of young academics, allowing the publication of mediocre articles and compromising the Chinese academic environment. We conclude that journal editors, reviewers and academics must work together to safeguard a rigorous and constructive scholarly publishing system in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper conducted a comparative analysis of the conference publications published by Chinese scholars from 2006 to 2019. The main results are as follows. First, the conference papers are unevenly distributed among the 31 provincial administrative regions. The annual number of conference papers published by scholars from different regions fluctuated during the study period. Second, there are different disciplinary distributions of China Proceedings of Conferences Full‐text Database (CPCD) papers and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) papers, and the CPCI publications have a relatively centralized disciplinary distribution. Third, it is noteworthy that there are more CPCD papers than CPCI papers. With the introduction of the new science and technology evaluation standards of the Ministry of Science and Technology, there should be more conference papers in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Chinese government has issued a series of policies and measures in recent years to enhance the international impact of its academic journals. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of such support measures on the overall performance of China's Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)‐indexed journals. We aggregated China's SCIE journals together into a virtual, multi‐disciplinary 'megajournal', which we call Mega China. Based on Journal Citation Reports from 2015 to 2019, we compared Mega China with the two largest real megajournals, Scientific Reports and PLoS ONE, in terms of journal output and citation performance. The number of SCIE‐indexed journals in China and their impact factors have increased continuously every year. The total citations and h‐index of Mega China reached 489,036 and 247 in 2019, respectively. The immediacy index and impact factor of Mega China have gradually increased, in contrast to those of Scientific Reports and PLoS ONE, and reached 0.735 and 2.601, respectively, in 2019. Our analysis, by viewing all China's SCIE journals as one megajournal, provides evidence that their performance has improved under the Chinese government's new policies. Further improving China's academic journals will require fundamental reforms of the traditional Chinese publishing system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to understand the practice of separating implications into separate sections or sub‐sections in scholarly articles that report empirical research in social sciences. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, I selected 120 articles from 40 journals in the field of management available via the Social Sciences Citation Index. I analysed the articles using qualitative content analysis that was guided by two research questions: (1) do journal articles include implications as an independent component? and (2) What guidance do journal editors provide about the presentation of implications in article submissions? The results show that 72% of articles separated implications into a section or sub‐section whilst the remaining 28% integrated them into other main sections. Of the first group, three quarters of authors separated implications into sub‐sections of the Discussion section and one quarter presented them as independent main sections that followed the Discussion. Several patterns related to the range, length, order, and type of implications sections and sub‐sections emerged. The results also showed that only 4% of journals mention implications in their guidelines for authors. Journal editors could use the results of this study to discuss the importance of implications to the journal strategic development, articulate their position on the article structure, and audit their guidelines. Researchers might use the study results to improve their article structure and, hence, increase chances of receiving positive editorial decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates journal self‐citation trends between 1975 and 2017. The research sought to answer whether articles that include journal self‐citations are more highly cited, if they affect the journal impact factor, and whether such articles are more relevant to their journals' content than others. We analysed approximately 24,000 active journals indexed in the Web of Science from 1975 to 2018 and found that, over time, whilst overall citations have increased dramatically, the percentage of journal self‐citations has reduced. Although self‐citations to recently published articles has increased since 2004, self‐citations also seem to have a decreasing effect on impact factor. High‐impact journals self‐cite recent publications more than lower‐impact journals but also cite recently published content more frequently than lower‐impact journals. There is a positive citation effect on articles that include journal self‐citations, and these appear more related to the current content of that journal based on the relatedness of references. Journal self‐citation can therefore be seen as a useful indicator to determine whether an article is a good fit for a journal and of interest to its readers. It may also contribute to higher visibility and impact of an article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated whether basic details of the research process are mentioned in social science research articles. Five hundred empirical articles were sampled from the Social Sciences Citation Index. The frequency of omitted details was mixed. For central essential details, omission rates were: 0% for research purpose, 2% for data collection method, 8% for sample size, 20% for data analysis method, and 48% for sampling strategy. The analysis found that 56% of articles were missing one or more of these five details. For more peripheral details, omission rates were: 36% for limitations, 55% for ethical considerations, and 94% for foundational philosophy. Prevalence rates were varied when compared across different disciplines and between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Possible causes for these findings include the use of secondary data, the view that certain details are not essential, and traditions in ethnographic writing. Those involved in academic publishing are invited to reflect on the basic details that are essential for their specialism and how reporting standards are enforced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to determine the academic publication rate of health sciences graduate theses, as well as the factors that influence researchers to publish. The study took place in Ege University Institute of Health Sciences, Turkey, and used a correlated research model to analyse both qualitative and quantitative data. We obtained data from 159 graduate students selected from 437 who graduated between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2014. From this group, 76 of the theses were published as 141 items. Of these, 93 (66%) were journal articles, of which 51 (36.2%) were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index (SCI)/SCI‐Expanded/Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). In the multiple regression analysis, we found that employment in a university increased the probability of producing publications from theses by 8.54 times (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.954–18.440) and that encouragement from a supervisor increased the same by 2.79 times (OR, 95% CI = 1.021–7.640). Reasons for not publishing their theses were classified into 11 items, of which thematic analysis showed that the most prominent reasons were lack of time (n = 18, 24.3%) and workload (n = 15, 20.2%). This suggests that interventions targeting these two factors may result in increased publication of theses. Key points: Half of graduates' theses were converted into published items with no significant differences according to gender and graduate programme.Successful publication of items derived from theses is positively influenced by employment in university and receiving encouragement from a supervisors.The main reason for not publishing theses was workload and lack of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper conducts a comparative study of the scientific publications of the 31 province‐level regions of Mainland China during 2006–2018. The main results are as follows. First, the four indices, ordered by total number of papers indexed, across all provinces, are the Science Citation Index (SCI), Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI), and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). The number of international publications from these regions shows an increasing trend, while the number of domestic research outputs shows a fluctuating trend. Second, the international and domestic publications produced by these regions greatly improved over the study period. Third, different regions vary greatly not only in research output but also in research preference. The top five preferred disciplines of international and domestic academic achievement are very different; the former all belong to the natural sciences, while more than 7 of 10 of the latter belong to the social sciences. Moreover, the adjacency matrices of the similarity of the 31 regions show that there is some correlation between the research spotlight of a region and its economic and cultural patterns. In general, scientific research in China has developed rapidly in recent years, and different regions vary greatly not only in research achievement but also in research preference. Key points: Scientific output is unevenly distributed between Chinese provinces, with Beijing, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Hubei, and Shaanxi each contributing almost half total output.The majority of Chinese‐authored articles in international journals are in STM areas, with national journals capturing the majority of social science articles.Beijing has the highest number of articles in Q1 and Q2 journals within Web of Science, followed by Jiangsu and then Shanghai.The different regions of china specialize in different academic disciplines, with some universities excelling social sciences and others in pure and applied sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study analyses data on papers of Croatian authors published in 2017 from four Web of Science Core Collection citation indexes (SCI‐EXP, SSCI, AHCI, and ESCI). The primary dataset (5,176 articles and reviews) was divided into two subsets, the open access (OA) subset (2,964 papers) and non‐OA subset (2,212 papers). We also used the primary dataset to create a subset of papers published in Croatian journals (1,588) as opposed to foreign ones. All were screened for full‐text OA status, journal JCR quartile ranking, journal dominant discipline, and language of publication. OA papers prevailed with 74.4%. Most were available at publisher websites. The percentage of OA papers in Croatian journals was 99.8%. The share of OA papers was the highest in the humanities and social sciences, which also saw the highest share of papers in the Croatian language. Key points: Three quarters of papers published by Croatian authors are available in open access (OA).Most papers are in English, even in Croatian journals; Croatian prevailed only in the humanities.Croatian journals are mostly non‐commercial, and many receive government subsidies, provided they are OA; they generally do not charge for article processing.The prevalence of OA over non‐OA papers is the highest in the humanities, followed by the social sciences.Open access publishing might increase international visibility of journals from periphery or semi‐periphery countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses the impact of the various topic‐based categories covered by the megajournal PLOS ONE. We analyse the articles published in PLOS ONE in 2016 and 2017 by classifying them according to the Web of Science Journal Citation Report categories. We have identified 101 substantial categories, 86 of which belong to the Science Citation Index Expanded and 15 to the Social Science Citation Index Expanded. 'Biochemistry & Molecular Biology' stands out as the most prolific category, accounting for 9% of the manuscripts. On calculating the impact factor of each topic‐based category as if it were an independent journal, we found that 28.7% of them would be placed in the first quartile of their corresponding field. Among the highest‐ranked journals, 'Palaeontology' and 'Nursing' stand out as they would be ranked in the first decile of their respective categories. About 69% of the categories would be in the second and third JCR quartiles, and only two would be in the fourth. This study indicates the need to assess the impact of papers published in megajournals by topic‐based category in order to accurately quantify the impact they have on their specific fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key pointsCiteScore was developed to implement familiar calculations but make them more comprehensive and transparent.The justification for a new metric was to complement existing information to allow for comparison and evaluation.CiteScore is available for all newly indexed journals with a publication history of 1 year.CiteScore Tracker is updated monthly to show progress towards the annual snapshot CiteScore.Feedback helps CiteScore develop, for example, by improving the management of title changes.CiteScore provided metrics for 23,350 journals in 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) was created recently, in 2015, but few assessments of its journal coverage have been made. The present study tries to fill that gap by comparing its coverage with that of other international abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases. Using this measure, it is feasible to benchmark this index against the other citation indexes for acceptance criteria. We analysed 6,296 ESCI‐indexed journals, 8,889 Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), 3,258 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 1,784 Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and 22,749 Scopus journals as indexed in July 2017 to determine their inclusion in 105 databases. We found that 19.3% of the ESCI journals are not covered by any other A&I databases, a high figure compared with only 0.5% SCIE, 0.3% SSCI, 0.3% AHCI, and 5.5% Scopus journals. This low coverage suggests that the selection criteria for ESCI journals are not consistent with the overall trend in the other classical citation indexes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thirty-six ophthalmology journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 2003 were selected to study the role of the 'papers cited rate' in scientific journal evaluation. The 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year cited rates of these papers were calculated to analyze statistically the correlations with impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, article influence score, and total cites. The results of questionnaires sent to 8,525 ophthalmologists were used to analyse the correlations between the papers cited rates for different years and traditional bibliometric indicators. The results showed that eigenfactor score and total cites were better than other indicators, and impact factor was better than the 5-year impact factor. The 2-year and 3-year cited rates of papers were reasonable for evaluating science journals, and the 2-year cited rate was better than the 3-year cited rate. The 5-year (and more than 5 years) cited rates were not significant in evaluating science journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, Chinese scientific journals are facing more severe internal and external problems than ever before, including increased competition from a growing number of similar journals, interspersed distribution, low impact, difficulty in management, low competitive strength, and outflow of papers. However, Chinese scientific journals will be better in the future if they can have a better sense of competition, a shorter review and publishing period, more customized services, better digital publishing, and more convenient access to papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history and development of the Science Citation Index (SCI) is an example of the power of users in defining and influencing the development of a new technology. The SCI was developed as a tool for the historian of science for the purpose of tracing the history of ideas, but it was appropriated by users for purposes for which it was unintended – as a tool for evaluating the literature, individuals, institutions, and countries. The development of a citation tool gave rise to a debate over what is actually measured by citations. The citation-as-reward camp views citations as indicators of quality and impact, whereas the citation-as-persuasion camp views citations as no more than rhetorical devices. While neither view can fully explain how authors use citations, citation-as-reward prevails as the dominant interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]