Search

This study shows a review time gender gap. In a sample of 44,371 published articles in 255 Turkish national journals, we document that female authors experience significantly longer peer review. We argue and find that review time follows a pecking order of authorship based on the joint efficiency of female versus male authorship and solo work versus teamwork. As a result, solo males experience the fastest reviews and female teams the longest reviews. The time differential between female and male solo-authored papers (solo gender gap) is 11.1 days (9.7%) and rises to 24.1 days (17%) for papers authored through same sex collaborations (team gender gap). Controlling for other factors, female authors are penalised by up to 7.1% longer review time. Significant gender gaps exist in six of the eight fields studied, including major areas such as Education, Business & Economics, and the General Social Sciences. Results suggest that subtle gender gaps persist despite improvements in women's academic representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A self-study of International Journal of Exercise Science(IJES) publications from 2008 through 2021 revealed a sex-data gap in participant and corresponding author representation. This finding prompted the creation of the IJES Working Group for Opportunity, Representation, and Diverse Perspectives. We are a collaborative team of authors, reviewers, and editors, spanning both rural and urban teaching- and research-focused institutions, who assembled regularly starting in September 2023. The goal was to contemplate potential challenges and opportunities around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), elicit discourse, and broaden inclusion and representation in exercise science research. Our group identified six main challenges/opportunities: 1) Mixed Definitions and Applications of DEI Principles; 2) Competing Lifeviews and Worldviews; 3) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in IJES; 4) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in the Broader Field; 5) IJES is a Home for Developing Scholars; and 6) Lag Time for Creating Change in IJES. As a growing international journal, we depend on a diverse group of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to achieve our mission. Accordingly, the Working Group encourages impactful, inclusive research that broadens representation within exercise science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the issuance of the Opinions on Promoting the Prosperity and Development of Academic Journals by Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China in 2021, the country has paid more attention to the development of journals, and the highquality development model of academic journals has become a research hotspot in the current publishing industry. From the perspective of the sustainable development of journals, talent is crucial. The talent of journal includes editors， authors and editorial board (young editorial board), among which young editorial board plays an increasingly important role in the development process of periodicals. Based on the work experience of the young editorial board in Forest Engineering for more than 10 years, focusing on the role of young editorial board as peer reviewers in the development of journals, the participation and importance of young editorial board in the running of scientific and technological journals are deeply discussed， so as to provide reference for the high-quality and sustainable development of academic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This omnibus paper brings together a number of esteemed editors and associate editors in order to share a variety of perspectives on academic publishing within the marketing discipline. Together, they provide glimpses into current thinking on some of the most pressing and current debates which we are struggling with, for example: impact, originality, bias, alienation, and the need for communities of thought. Polyvocally, this omnibus reflects on the many failures of our discipline and provides some routes forward in reframing our field's epistemic assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All fields of knowledge are challenged to adopt newer, more sophisticated methodologies to cope with growing complexity. Phenomena under study require further multidisciplinary and mixed methods collaborations to achieve expertise able to improve research strategies and practices. Furthermore, traditional methodological approaches face limits to their analytical reach. Here, we demonstrate opportunities from adopting newer, more sophisticated methodologies in the field of higher education (HE) research by comparing three case studies. We argue that such methods and data innovate the mapping and understanding of global HE. These studies uncover novel field characterizations, enabled via analysis of tens of thousands of HE authors and articles over several decades to assess how journal publication, topics, and levels of analysis (individual, organizational, and system) have evolved. Our results imply that to better understand the future of HE worldwide and to address growing challenges, newer methodological directions and data sources will be key to facilitate more comprehensive examinations of the globalizing field. However, our analysis also highlights the technical and learning challenges in implementing these methodologies; thus, we argue for the need to promote more sophisticated methodological training of current and future generations of HE researchers as well as strengthened collaborations across disciplinary, methodological, and cultural boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Egyptian Journal of Information Sciences is the property of Beni Suef University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sociohistórica: Cuadernos del CISH is the property of Universidad Nacional de La Plata and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study examines the present status and strategies to improve the quality of Vietnamese academic publications in the fields of social sciences and humanities. The study utilizes a descriptive qualitative design, sourcing data from a recent journal list of Vietnam State Professorships and the ISI/Scopus database while contrasting it with recent developments in regional academic journals across Southeast Asia. This raises concerns regarding the scholarly publication, including traditional publishing methods, the quality of peer review, and issues relating to publication formatting. I propose some solutions to address these problems, facilitating their entry into the international arena for social sciences and humanities. The proposed solutions encompass editorial management, targeting niche publications, publishing exclusively in English, adopting digitalization, and improving editorial awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the open science environment, this article evaluates the discourse power of academic journals from the perspective of multiple integration. It is conducive to scientific research management and provides a reference for enriching and perfecting the evaluation theory and indicators system of academic journals. Based on the theory of evaluation science, discourse power theory and communication theory, first, this article discusses the basic issues of the discourse power evaluation for academic journals. It defines the academic discourse power and the discourse power of academic journals. It is proposed that the discourse power of academic journals is composed of discourse influence and discourse leading. Discourse influence is composed of discourse influence ability and discourse power, and discourse leading is composed of social media discourse, news and policy discourse, encyclopaedia discourse, peer-review discourse and video discourse leading. This article explores the formation process and operation mechanism of the discourse power for academic journals. Then, this article constructs the discourse power evaluation model of academic journals. Second, this article integrates multi-source heterogeneous data, then adopts correlation analysis, integrated factor analysis, entropy weight method, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and two-dimensional four-quadrant mapping method to conduct empirical research on the discourse power evaluation of Medicine, General and Internal journals from the perspectives of multi-dimensions, multi-factors, multi-indicators and multi-methods fusion. The results show that the research on the discourse power evaluation for academic journals based on the theory, method and application logic is practical, comprehensive and reliable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, there has been a gradual increase in the number of research collaborations and the production of scientific articles. To date, few studies have analysed this phenomenon in the field of management sciences. This paper presents an exploratory analysis of the phenomenon, with a focus on the production of articles in 12 leading journals in the field of management. Data reveals a twofold phenomenon: firstly, the exponential multiplication of articles in some top journals, and secondly, the near disappearance of articles with a single author and the concomitant growth of articles attributed to five or more authors. This trend gives rise to the necessity of addressing ethical and practical aspects in order to cope with the phenomenon, which could otherwise undermine the reputation and quality of scientific production in management.

Se analiza la productividad de los autores que publicaron artículos en la revista Contratexto, desde 1985 hasta 2022, se busca identificar a los autores más productivos y aquellos que constituyen el núcleo de autores productores. Para ello, se construyó una base de datos bibliográfica dedicada a la revista en el gestor de referencias Endnote X9; posteriormente, los datos fueron exportados a Excel y trabajados con los paquetes nls2 y proto del Proyecto R. La productividad de los autores fue medida con la Ley de Lotka mediante el modelo del poder inverso generalizado, en el análisis de los datos se consideraron las tres formas de conteo: directo, completo y fraccionado. Para medir el ajuste de los datos observados a la distribución de Lotka para cada una de las formas de conteo se usaron la prueba chi-cuadrado y Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Se encontró que el modelo del poder inverso generalizado para las tres formas de conteo se ajusta a la distribución de Lotka. Se encontró también una alta concentración de autores con un solo artículo publicado en la revista en sus 38 años de existencia, los autores más productivos en el periodo de estudio en su mayoría están vinculados a la universidad que edita la revista = The productivity of the authors who published articles in the journal Contratexto, from 1985 to 2022, was analyzed to identify the most productive authors and those who constitute the core of producing authors. For this purpose, a bibliographic database dedicated to the journal was built in the Endnote X9 reference manager; subsequently, the data were exported to Excel and processed in Project R. The productivity of the authors was measured with Lotka’s Law using the generalized inverse power model; the three forms of counting were considered in the analysis of the data: direct, complete, and fractional. The chi-square test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to measure the fit of the observed data to the Lotka distribution for each of the counting methods. The generalized inverse power model for the three counting forms was found to fit Lotka’s distribution. A high concentration of authors with only one article published in the journal in its 38 years of existence was also found; the most productive authors in the studied period are mostly linked to the university that publishes the journal.

The impact factor of journals depends on the number of citations received, including self-citations to the journal. The main objective of this study is to determine the self-citation rate in Library and Information Science journals and analyze their influence on the impact factor, analyzing whether there are differences between Library Science (LS), Information Science (IS) and Management Information Systems (MIS) journals. Journals from the Information Science and Library Science category in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) with impact factor were selected and classified into three specialties: LS, IS and MIS. Data related to selfcitations and impact of journals were extracted from JCR 2022: total number of citations, self-citations, number of citable items, impact factor with and without self-citations and quartile. From these data, the self-citation rate was created for each journal. MIS journals have a higher impact factor and lower self-citation rate than IS and LS journals, the latter being the ones with a lower impact factor and higher self-citation rate. There is an inverse correlation between the self-citation rate and impact factors in the three specialties, although it is only significant in MIS journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study sheds light on the reality of the scientific research published in journal of the Faculty of Arts – Beni-Suef University. It also identifies the quantitative distribution of research published in the Journal's issues from (2019 to 2023) by defining chronological distributions, different objective trends and typology, and prevailing research approaches in the Journal's published research. The study relied on a bibliographic approach based on the use of statistical methods and methods in data analysis and results development. The content analysis method was also used in the section is to analyze curricula and tools adopted in research to achieve the study's objectives. The website of the Journal of the Faculty of Arts of Beni Suef University was used to compile the study's data in preparation for its analysis and exit of its indicators. The study's findings include: The number of research papers published in the Journal during the study period was (293); in Five volumes and twenty-one issue. Researchers from Beni-Suef University accounted for the largest share of the total research papers published during the study period with the first rank in terms of the number of research papers published in the journal with a number of (165) research 56.31% of researchers who contributed to the publication of their scientific research in the magazine belonged to eight nationalities: Egyptian, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatari, Emirati, Algeria and Chadian. Egyptian nationals in the first order comprised (318) of (93.52). The topics of social research topped the list of subjects published in the journal with (74) studies, accounting for 25.26% of the total number of research papers published in the journal during the study period. Following in lower ranks were topics such as psychology, archaeology, media, and Eastern languages, with (9), (5), (2), and (1) studies respectively, and percentages of (3.07%, 1.71%, 0.68%, 0.34%). The study monitored seven languages in which the journal's research papers were published: Arabic, English and French, Chinese and German, Spanish and Persian. Arabic came in the first order with a percentage 86.68% since (253) research papers were published in Arabic language from the total published in the journal's numbers during the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers an overview of the history and current status of the journal Religion (Routledge). Its authors have co-edited the journal since 2008. It reviews aspects of the journal's history and its profile as a generalist, international disciplinary journal in the study of religion/s. It offers bibliometric overview of the journal, in comparison with 49 other SoR journals, followed by a discussion of journals as business venues and of changes brought about by Open Access, including challenges posed by new publishers and new types of (mega)journals. The article concludes with reflection on the peer review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Many academic journals are discontinued; however, there is little discussion of this.Based on one specific case, this essay shows how changes in the systems of evaluation and funding science impact a journal.A lack of quality submissions and of publishers' will to support and/or pay a journal can lead to its discontinuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading. Findings: It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn. Originality/value: This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators' composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals. Design/methodology/approach: This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results. Findings: Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem. Originality/value: This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic journals serve as a mediator for scholarly communication, promoting the dissemination of knowledge and innovation across academic disciplines. This article examines the structure and components of academic journal articles, highlighting their central role in sharing original research, presenting literature reviews, and scaffolding academic discourse. Additionally, we outline the distinguishing characteristics of different types of journals, including research journals, peer-reviewed journals, open access, and limited access journals. Understanding these factors would help young researchers, scholars and the whole academic community successfully navigate in the complex environment of academic journals, ensuring effective spreading of their work in the respective fields. A special attention is drawn to the editorial policies of Luboslovie, an annual journal of the Faculty of Humanities at Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen. Those policies aim to build a reciprocal dialogue between the editorial team and the authors to improve the quality of academic writing in line with the requirements set by the world databases to increase the bibliometric index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new JS bibliometric index is presented, which is able to improve the objectivity of the recently published Jz index by measuring the scientific relevance of academic journals according to their scientific production, age and editorial quality. It constitutes a new advance in avoiding the use of citations received, a parameter that has been called into question due to its easy manipulation and null reliability, despite which it continues to be used in an abusive manner to estimate the media impact of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts' quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions. Methods: Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor. Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods. Results: Almost all the reviewers (n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers (n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275). Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the revernacularization or reduction of the use-value of the standard Croatian language within the scientific and academic system. A bibliometric analysis of 1,152 academic papers was conducted on the sample of the selected Croatian journals in sociology and philology (Croatian studies). A longitudinal approach was used, analyzing all issues of the included journals in the periods 1996 to 1999, 2006 to 2009, and 2016 to 2019. Unlike in the 1990s, the selected journals were in later periods exposed to internationalization by being included in relevant international databases for scientific research. This article aims to investigate whether and how this process has affected the revernacularization of the Croatian language. The results show a similar absolute number of papers written in Croatian within the periods analyzed, and also a decrease in their relative number (share). In the period from 2016, a marked increase in the number of papers written in English was observed, as well as in the number of foreign authors. Such papers mostly do not address the topics of Croatian society. The results indicate an intensified internationalization of the analyzed journals, but not revernacularization. The mentioned trend can, nevertheless, lead to revernacularization with increasing international recognition of the journals, the continued promotion of publication in foreign languages, and a more rigorous policy of academic advancement in Croatia. In this sense, this study considers the need for preserving the standard Croatian language within the academic system, bringing both into a relationship with the widely promoted model of endogenous social development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indexing is considered a means of assessing the quality and impact of scientific publications. Each information system defines its selection policy by the appropriate rules, procedures and controls to ensure that the sources included in it meet the standards for scientific publishing. This article examines the criteria for indexing scientific journals in Index Copernicus and compares them with the indexing procedures of Scopus and Web of Science databases, with a focus on Bulgarian journals included in the Polish scientometric platform. Data related to the proper identification of journals, their editorial policies, open access publishing, indexing in academic research databases, and impact indicators are analyzed. The study found similarities in the indexing criteria of Index Copernicus and reputable databases Scopus и Web of Science, but differences are observed regarding the transparency and control of their application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indexing is considered a means of assessing the quality and impact of scientific publications. Each information system defines its selection policy by the appropriate rules, procedures and controls to ensure that the sources included in it meet the standards for scientific publishing. This article examines the criteria for indexing scientific journals in Index Copernicus and compares them with the indexing procedures of Scopus and Web of Science databases, with a focus on Bulgarian journals included in the Polish scientometric platform. Data related to the proper identification of journals, their editorial policies, open access publishing, indexing in academic research databases, and impact indicators are analyzed. The study found similarities in the indexing criteria of Index Copernicus and reputable databases Scopus и Web of Science, but differences are observed regarding the transparency and control of their application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales is the property of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales is the property of Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

While there are benefits to collaborative research, navigating group dynamics can also bring challenges, particularly for doctoral students and early career academics who are new to the research process. These dynamics extend beyond initial manuscript submission and include processes associated with interpreting reviewer comments, deciding upon and making revisions, and developing clear author response documents through the revision process. Herein, the authors overview one systematic and replicable approach to managing revisions. Steps include (a) read, set aside, and return to the reviewer comments; (b) document initial reactions to comments; (c) collectively review the comments and decide upon direction; (d) coordinate revisions to the manuscript; (e) craft final response statements; and (f) prepare a resubmission cover letter to the editor. Recommendations will be provided for approaching the revision, including how to revise the manuscript to highlight edits, and suggestions for tone and approach, particularly when disagreeing with a reviewer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the claims for "de-Westernizing" Communication and Media studies, we examine the publication trends of BRICS-based researchers between 2012 and 2021. The article compares SciVal and SJR data concerning 7,938 articles to understand the circulation of such academic communities in top-ranked outlets. The results reveal a remarkable productivity growth in all BRICS countries, striking differences within the group in the number of research articles, the emergence of China as the bloc's leading hub, and the lack of cooperation among such five countries. We also discuss and criticize how the "de-Westernization" agenda may eventually become another category domesticated by the Global North. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the Voting with Feet Index (VFI), a novel method for evaluating the quality of academic journals. Unlike previous approaches that rely on citation analysis or expert surveys, which have limitations such as not indicating paper quality or being time-consuming and expensive, the VFI argues that a journal's quality should be determined by the quality of the papers it publishes. This is measured through proxies such as awards, author reputation, and institutional affiliation, as assessing each paper individually is challenging. The study also examines the relative importance of these proxies and their potential combination. To rank journals, the VFI analyzes the distribution of papers that have received important awards, papers authored by notable scholars, and papers affiliated with distinguished institutions. A score is then calculated for each journal. The VFI was applied to 40 MS & OR (Management Science & Operations Research) journals and compared with impact factor and expert survey rankings. The results demonstrate a strong correlation between the VFI and these rankings, particularly for high-level journals. Furthermore, the rankings of selected journals in physics and chemistry were determined using Nobel Prize data. This analysis not only confirmed the accuracy of the VFI in identifying top journals but also highlighted important considerations for the indicator's construction. Overall, the VFI presents a promising new approach to assess journal quality, addressing the limitations of existing methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal field classifications in Scopus are used for citation-based indicators and by authors choosing appropriate journals to submit to. Whilst prior research has found that Scopus categories are occasionally misleading, it is not known how this varies for different journal types. In response, we assessed whether specialist, cross-field and general academic journals sometimes have publication practices that do not match their Scopus classifications. For this, we compared the Scopus narrow fields of journals with the fields that best fit their articles' titles and abstracts. We also conducted qualitative follow-up to distinguish between Scopus classification errors and misleading journal aims. The results show sharp field differences in the extent to which both cross-field and apparently specialist journals publish articles that match their Scopus narrow fields, and the same for general journals. The results also suggest that a few journals have titles and aims that do not match their contents well, and that some large topics spread themselves across many relevant fields. Thus, the likelihood that a journal's Scopus narrow fields reflect its contents varies substantially by field (although without systematic field trends) and some cross-field topics seem to cause difficulties in appropriately classifying relevant journals. These issues undermine citation-based indicators that rely on journal-level classification and may confuse scholars seeking publishing venues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts’ quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions. Methods Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor. Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods. Results Almost all the reviewers (n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers (n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275). Conclusions Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts.

The article aims to summarise the activity of the “Medical Library Forum” (MLF) – an scholarly journal which has served to share ideas and record the work of medical university libraries and related institutions for over 16 years now. The paper presents three key stages in MLF’s history – from the idea of creating the journal in 2006 and printing the first issue in 2008, through moving the publishing activity from Łódź to Warsaw, to finally introducing the Creative Commons licence to publishing practice. The authors remark on the systematic progress of the journal – constantly bettering the level of publishing and editorial practices and strengthening the journal’s reputation by being indexed on the ministerial list, as well as the ERIH PLUS or DOAJ databases. The article puts emphasis on the journal’s support towards the open access idea, expressed by publishing in the Diamon Open Access model. Further plans for MLF’s future are also presented, such as implementing the Open Journal Systems (OJS) in the publishing process.

Despite the increasing volume of research addressing the relevance of de-Westernizing Media Studies, we lack a comparative evaluation of the performance of Global South universities regarding their presence in the most prestigious domains within the field of Communication. Against this background, the article explores if and to what extent the publication of articles authored by BRICS-based scholars in top-ranked journals is restricted to a handful of academic institutions – making them a national “elite” authorized to engage in the mainstream intellectual debate.

The discussion about the words and concepts related to autism is alive in the scholarly community, tacitly or explicitly. Contrasting ideologies linked to the medical model and neurodiversity paradigm underlie terminology referring to autism. The present proof-of-concept study conducted a critical discourse analysis of the terminology (i.e., microstructure) used to describe autism in two academic journals across four decades. Specifically, we utilized the framework provided by Bottema-Beutel et al. (2021) to analyze 35 articles published in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders and Autism. These articles were reviewed with a focus on terminology used to describe the concept of autism, autistic individuals, and nonautistic individuals. The main findings support the feasibility of this proof-of-concept study. They revealed a predominant use of potentially ableist language across the four decades and a slow incorporation of alternative terms usually linked with more inclusive language in the last decade. We suggest that this change has been driven by the autistic community in a process of democratizing the role of experts. Accordingly, we recommend including autistic individuals’ choices to designate their community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic publishers have quickly responded to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on authorship and academic integrity. However, there remains a lack of understanding about AI authorship policies and the attitude of academic journals towards these tools. This study aims to address this gap by examining the AI authorship policies of 300 top academic journals during the period of late‐spring 2023. Over half of the journals examined have an AI authorship policy and guidelines for acknowledging AI usage in manuscript preparation. These acknowledgments are typically made in the methods or acknowledgement sections, although some journals have introduced a new, special section on AI usage. The study also found that AI authorship policies may differ depending on the publisher and discipline of the journal. Many publishers have adopted uniform AI authorship policies that are implemented across all journals that they publish. These results are useful for publishers, editors, and researchers who want to learn more about how academic journals are dealing with the emergence of large language models and other AI tools in scholarly communications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work aims to present a detailed evaluation instrument with the best possible operating conditions for the analysis of academic journals, from the point of view of the research staff. This protocol is based on the identification and operationalization of indicators previously obtained through the heuristic analysis method, a systematic review and expert observation. This work has resulted in a multidimensional characterization instrument composed of 31 indicators–each with its description, examination procedure and examples–articulated in seven major parameters: impact, dissemination, submission process, costs, journal services and commitment to both the European Research Council (ERC) Plan S and the DORA declaration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can we build new multilingual futures for academic journals in the age of electronic publishing? The answer may lie in the multilingual pasts of scholarly publishing. This essay explores historical trajectories of journal editing to examine how the figure of the "editor" today has evolved in relation to the changing landscape of research since the inception of scholarly periodicals. It begins by exploring early multilingual practices of journals in the 17th and 18th centuries. The essay continues by exploring how multilingualism remained a mainstay of journals even with the boom in journals of the 19th century that emerged from research gaining a foothold in higher education institutions. It then considers how journals of the 20th and 21st century lost their way and foreclosed linguistic diversity in the increasing drive towards disciplinarity and the neoliberalization of higher education. The essay argues that another editorial workflow is possible, one that productively negotiates the tension between editor as gatekeeper of publishing and editor as steward of knowledge production. As such, it makes the case for a new approach to the work of journal editing better positioned to facilitate linguistic diversity and equity in scholarly communications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of MLS Educational Research is the property of MLS Journals S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Politics in Latin America is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Open review is one of the components of open science that scientific journals are incorporating in their editorial processes. In contrast to open access to literature and research data, open review still raises many doubts and concerns among the involved parties (editors, reviewers and authors). This article aims to analyze the perception of editors of Brazilian academic journals on open peer review. To achieve this, a questionnaire was sent to 3,208 editors, out of which 351 responded to the full set of 42 questions. The editors expressed satisfaction with the current model of scientific communication, the double-blind model, and disagreed with any type of identification of reviewers. However, they perceived an advantage in open review, as it allows for mutual interaction between authors and reviewers with the goal of improving the quality of content. As barriers, they pointed out conflicts of interest and rivalries that open review might generate and the difficulty in finding reviewers willing to accept this review model. The overall conclusion points to a conservative profile among editors regarding the introduction of open peer review practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this work is to identify the different names, positions, and roles of editorial board members (EBMs) of journals in the Information Science and Library Science (ISLS) field of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to establish a classification of the different roles to improve communication between editors and researchers. Among the 86 journals included in the ISLS field, the first and last names, position, and institutional affiliation of each EBM were extracted from 84 journals that allowed access to committee information. The information was standardized, and the positions were classified by consensus into major groups according to the role they play in the journals. The 84 journals included 4,122 positions held by EBMs, distributed in 201 positions and classified into 11 broad categories. The majority of positions were included in the Editorial Board category (n = 1,516), followed by Editorial Advisory Board (n = 734) and Associate Editor (n = 566). The journals were published by 36 publishers, with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis contributing the most journals (11 each). The journals in which the EBMs had the highest percentage of foreign members were those published in the Netherlands. This study provides a picture of the broad distribution of the roles and terminological titles that EBMs have in Information Science and Library Science journals. Because of this diversity, it is advisable to develop a guide to good editorial practices that includes both a description of the complex range of roles performed by EBMs and a unified nomenclature for these universal positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Having been an unofficial archivist of Organization over the last 20 years, in this essay I offer a selection of stories from the archive as a tribute to the journal's 30th anniversary. I draw the stories mainly from the journal's backstage, hidden archive (comprising old documents, interviews, and observation), but also to a lesser extent from its public (i.e. published) facet (comprising editorials and journal papers). The stories concern the journal's relationship with Sage, its efforts to internationalise, the evolution of its archive in relation to the journal community, and the preservation of its critical intellectual mission. Altogether, these stories offer insights for the journal's collective memory and hope for remaking its future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary explores gender representation in marketing's academic journals. We explore three key areas a) the gender composition of editorial boards, b) special issue celebrations and c) awards. We highlight how in 2020, 68% of editorial board positions are held by male colleagues, and consider the consequences of this both in terms of providing role models for female academics – 'it's hard to be what you can't see' (Wright Edelman, M. [2015]. Child watch® column: It's hard to be what you can't see. ) – but also in there being less opportunities for women to avail of key indicators of esteem utilised in promotions processes. We argue for an intersectional approach to addressing injustice and inequalities within our academy. We propose a programme for change – revolving around decision-making, quotas, awards, and celebrations – for the gatekeepers in our field to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, academics worldwide need publishing in international journals. Various events and articles aim at teaching others how to write, and they spread ideas and skills to help newcomers. However, we tend to neglect the specificities of periphery-based academics, engaging with "international" journals. Drawing from our experience as academics from Brazil, we argue that publishing in top-academic journals in management and organization studies demands more than knowing a language and goes beyond style. Periphery-based academics willing to publish in "international" journals engage in a colonial encounter. They need to develop their ability to perform a double-translation, writing ideas in another language and for another audience. Besides, they need to deal with financial costs that are often invisible to others. We claim that decolonizing international journals is challenging and must be an ongoing process, of which some steps we highlight here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]