Search

This study first used the Journal Integrated Disruption Index (JIDI) to evaluate the disruptive innovation level of scientific journals published by China, Japan, India, and South Korea from 2010 to 2019. Then the authors analysed the annual trend and correlation of academic influence and disruptive innovation level of these journals. Finally, the selected journals were compared with Nature and Science annually to better measure their development trend and provide a reference for their further development. The study found that the average disruptive innovation level of journals from three countries except Japan has been rising. Selected journals' academic influence, disruptive innovation level, and number of research articles were significantly correlated, but the correlation coefficients differed between the different attributes. At present, the disruptive innovation level of authoritative journals of four countries is still far from Nature and Science and the gap of disruptive innovation level is far greater than that of academic influence. Although the academic influence and the disruptive innovation level of selected journals are rising, the attractiveness to disruptive findings needs to be further improved. Therefore, Asian countries should implement scientific evaluation and journal evaluation systems that encourage innovation and promote academic research under the guidance of innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retraction is the process of removing an article from the scientific records after it has been published. The objective of the study is to explore the influence of the number of retracted papers on the journal quality parameters in the subject of Psychology. The study has applied Pearson Coefficient Correlation to establish the relationship between the number of retracted papers and bibliometric parameters of journal evaluation. All the retracted journal articles indexed in the Scopus database up to the year 2022 in the subject of Psychology, were considered for the study. The Software tools, i.e. MS Excel, and statistical software R Studio® (version 3.6.1) along with the Biblioshiny bibliometrics package were used for data analysis. Bibliometrics indicators, i.e. SJR, total citations count, and h index of the journals, were retrieved from the website of Scimago Journal Ranking (www.scimagojr.com), and the Journal Impact Factor (IF) 2022 was used for the analysis. The results revealed a set of 180 journal articles scattered across 99 journals, that were retracted in the subject of Psychology. Among these 36% of the retracted papers were published as open access. From the analysis, it was concluded that there is a positive correlation between the number of retracted papers and bibliometric indicators i.e., impact factor, h-index, total citation counts, and JCR. On the other hand, there is the least influence of the number of retracted articles with SJR (0.024) and IF (0.072). However, a visible and normal co-relation was found among the total citation counts (0.170) and h-index (0.136), respectively. The findings of the study revealed that there is the least correlation between the number of retracted journal articles and the journal evaluation indicators; therefore, journal publishers must include a retraction policy to enhance the journal's reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Google Scholar Metrics has been considered an alternative source for analyzing the impact of academic publications. Its free access, user-friendly interface, and wide coverage have contributed to its growing popularity. However, it presents several challenges, such as the absence of advanced search engines and data extraction tools, the lack of bibliometric standardization, and the non-identification of self-citations, making it difficult to use in large-scale research. To address these challenges, Gsm_hdata was developed as a bibliometric tool for research, extraction, and analysis of citation data from the h5-index of Google Scholar Metrics. The tool consists of four resources that perform automatic searches and data extraction of indexed publications, identify and calculate journal self-citation indicators, and allow for yearly data updates. Initial tests have shown that the tool is efficient and accurate. However, some manual cleaning and verification steps are still necessary. There is room for improvement in the tool, including the implementation of a certification system for the publication search engine to avoid errors with homonymous or similarly titled publications. With technical improvements and more robust tests, Gsm_hdata has the potential to become a relevant tool for bibliometric studies. As well as being used in empirical research, this innovative tool can be used by funding agencies that choose the h5-index as a journal impact indicator. [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]

Background: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. Objective: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. Methods: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. Results: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83). Conclusions: The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Family Research (JFR) is the property of University of Bamberg Press 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.)

The objective of this study is to address the disciplinary variations in Journal Impact Factor (JIF), enabling its reasonable application in the evaluation of journals across diverse disciplines. To achieve this, the study utilized journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports and considered papers from eight distinct disciplines as the research subjects. The citations of papers within each academic field were transformed into normal distributions, each with a different base logarithm. Subsequently, the logarithm-corrected impact factor (IFlog) for each journal was calculated. Category normalization for the IFlog (cnIFlog) was conducted by dividing each journal's IFlog by the logarithmic correction aggregate impact factor of the discipline to which it belongs and the superiorities of cnIFlog in the evaluation of academic journals across different disciplines were demonstrated empirically. The results showed that taking different base logarithms could convert the citations of the journal papers into an approximately normal distribution. The IFlog of the eight disciplines' journals was normally distributed, and the IFlog1.5, IFln, IFlog5, and IFlog10 of the journals were 100% positively related (r=1.000, P=0.000) both in the same and different disciplines. Compared with the impact factor (IF2018), average impact factor percentile (aJIFP), journal index of PR8 (JIPR8), IFlog and relative impact factor (rIF2018), and other indicators, cnIFlog1.5 exhibits the least variation among the journals from the eight different fields. In comparison to aJIFP and JIPR8, it demonstrates the highest correlation, ideal discrimination, and stability. It is concluded that cnIFlog1.5 is an ideal journal evaluation indicator in same or different disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines the change in pattern of impact factor and SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) of the journal under study from 2008 to 2021 besides examining the pattern of growth of the number of papers. The study identified the most prolific actors (authors, institutions, and countries), besides examining their citation impact in terms of citation per paper & relative citation impact. The pattern of citation and highly cited papers have also been identified. Based on the analysis of data it is observed that the number of articles published was highest and almost equal in the years 2013, 2016, and 2017. Using the methodology of the complete count of records, it is observed that 56 countries contributed 2,939 articles. China followed by the USA published the highest number of papers. The value of CPP was highest for Universidad de Granada (Spain) and Leiden University (the Netherlands). Among the authors, Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman of the Leiden University had the highest CPP. Only a minuscule number of published articles remained uncited. Article authored by Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. published in issue 11(4), 2017, 959-975 of the journal received the highest number of citations. The pattern of authorship indicates that during the first ten years, more papers were single and two-authored while during 2017-2021 more number of papers were multi-authored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Purpose/Significance] There are many evaluation indicators and methods for journal evaluation, and it is of great significance to study the importance of evaluation indicators of journals. This paper proposed an analysis framework for "post-event" analysis of the importance or weight of evaluation indicators. [Method/Process] This paper divides the journal evaluation indicators into "before" importance and "after" importance, and focuses on the "after" importance, that is, the determination of key indicators after objective cluster analysis. Taking the bibliometric indicators of JCR 2019 economics journals as the research object, K-means clustering was first used to obtain the classification of evaluation results, and then the key indicators of journal evaluation were calculated based on principal component analysis and partial least squares discriminant analysis, and the importance of each indicator was analyzed. Starting from the objective results and the meaning of the indicators themselves, this study expounded the reasons why indicators are important. [Results/Conclusions] Compared with the importance of "before", the importance of "after the fact" is to determine the evaluation results first, without involving weights, and completely based on data evaluation. There is relatively little controversy in the selection of methods. The indicator is more scientific and objective; the use of multi-factor evaluation can comprehensively reflect the common influence of each variable, and the use of the "dimension reduction" idea can better retain the information of the original variables and reduce the multicollinearity of the evaluation indicator; K-means cluster analysis methods, both the PLS-DA and PLS-DA models, are capable of evaluating and classifying journals. According to the results of PLS-DA, the VIP value of five indicators is greater than 1; the three most important indicators that affect the evaluation results of journals obtained by the PLS-DA method are the journal impact factor(IF), the other citation IF and the five-year IF, and the meaning of the indicators is the IF of other citations and the five-year IF make up for the shortcomings of the IF; the importance of the journal IF, the IF of other citations and the five-year IF is not much different, and the importance of the journal IF is relatively greater. In the quantitative evaluation of journals, it is necessary to use multi-index evaluation to make the evaluation more comprehensive and scientific; PLS-DA has a good effect on general journals, but the better journals have a general effect, and cannot effectively distinguish Class A journals.

Journal evaluation methodologies are often used to produce journal-ranking lists for various purposes. In this study, the authors present a modularity-based journal evaluation methodology based on the proportional contributions that journals receive from authors affiliated with globally ranked institutions. This empirically developed methodology draws on a stratification of institutions in the global rankings to allocate weights to article batches in a given journal. The authors apply the proposed methodology to evaluating 12,150 scholarly journals in different subject fields. The results show an elitist set of journals with a heavy tendency to publish mostly from authors affiliated with the top-ranked institutions. These journals have the highest weighted author affiliation index (WAAI) scores and are highly distinguished titles in different subject fields. However, the authors find a large population of journals that receive contributions mostly from institutions at lower ranks. They argue that the WAAI methodology provides a generic and objective evaluation technique for ranking journals across all disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many years, the journal evaluation system has been centered on impact indicators, resulting in evaluation results that do not reflect the academic innovation of journals. To solve this issue, this study attempts to construct the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) from the perspective of measuring the disruption of each journal article. In the actual study, we measured the disruption of articles of 22 selected virology journals based on the OpenCitations Index of Crossref ope DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) first. Then we calculated the JDI of 22 virology journals based on the absolute disruption index ( D Z ) of the articles. Finally, we conducted an empirical study on the differences and correlations between the impact indicators and disruption indicators as well as the evaluation effect of the disruption index. The results of the study show: (1) There are large differences in the ranking of journals based on disruption indicators and impact indicators. Among the 22 journals, 12 are ranked higher by JDI than Cumulative Impact Factor for 5 years (CIF5), the Journal Index for PR6 (JIPR6) and average Percentile in Subject Area (aPSA). The ranking difference of 17 journals between the two kinds of indicators is greater than or equal to 5. (2) There is a medium correlation between disruption indicators and impact indicators at the level of journals and papers. JDI is moderately correlated with CIF5, JIPR6 and aPSA, with correlation coefficients of 0.486, 0.471 and − 0.448, respectively. D Z was also moderately correlated with Cumulative Citation (CC), Percentile Ranking with 6 Classifications (PR6) and Percentile in Subject Area (PSA) with correlation coefficients of 0.593, 0.575 and − 0.593, respectively. (3) Compared with traditional impact indicators, the results of journal disruption evaluation are more consistent with the evaluation results of experts' peer review. JDI reflects the innovation level of journals to a certain extent, which is helpful to promote the evaluation of innovation in sci-tech journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2022, a new version of the Brazilian indicator for the evaluation of scientific journals Qualis Periodicos was published, corresponding to the period 2017-2020. This new version of the indicator is the only official version since the previous one was published in 2016, in spite of the leaks in recent years of some estimates and discussions on the new values of the journals according to new criteria, in which citations and values from other bibliometric indicators such as CiteScore, Scopus, and Clarivate-JIF percentiles and Google’s h, h5, or h10 indexes have gained more relevance. Qualis Periodicos, practically ubiquitous in Brazil, corresponds to the main factor and motivation that Brazilian researchers have in deciding where to publish their best papers, so its situation and values are of special interest for journals that want to attract quality research from a country as large as Brazil, where recent political changes are expected to prompt greater investment in its scientific system and more resources for publications. This paper presents the values of the Spanish journals in Communication and Information, based on the Fecyt 2021 list and the Documentation and Communication categories of Dialnet Métricas, and identifies some anomalies in the system that should be considered by editors and authors when publishing their results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Purpose/Significance] There are many evaluation indicators and methods for journal evaluation, and it is of great significance to study the importance of evaluation indicators of journals. This paper proposed an analysis framework for "post-event" analysis of the importance or weight of evaluation indicators. [Method/Process] This paper divides the journal evaluation indicators into "before" importance and "after" importance, and focuses on the "after" importance, that is, the determination of key indicators after objective cluster analysis. Taking the bibliometric indicators of JCR 2019 economics journals as the research object, K-means clustering was first used to obtain the classification of evaluation results, and then the key indicators of journal evaluation were calculated based on principal component analysis and partial least squares discriminant analysis, and the importance of each indicator was analyzed. Starting from the objective results and the meaning of the indicators themselves, this study expounded the reasons why indicators are important. [Results/Conclusions] Compared with the importance of "before", the importance of "after the fact" is to determine the evaluation results first, without involving weights, and completely based on data evaluation. There is relatively little controversy in the selection of methods. The indicator is more scientific and objective; the use of multi-factor evaluation can comprehensively reflect the common influence of each variable, and the use of the "dimension reduction" idea can better retain the information of the original variables and reduce the multicollinearity of the evaluation indicator; K-means cluster analysis methods, both the PLS-DA and PLS-DA models, are capable of evaluating and classifying journals. According to the results of PLS-DA, the VIP value of five indicators is greater than 1; the three most important indicators that affect the evaluation results of journals obtained by the PLS-DA method are the journal impact factor(IF), the other citation IF and the five-year IF, and the meaning of the indicators is the IF of other citations and the five-year IF make up for the shortcomings of the IF; the importance of the journal IF, the IF of other citations and the five-year IF is not much different, and the importance of the journal IF is relatively greater. In the quantitative evaluation of journals, it is necessary to use multi-index evaluation to make the evaluation more comprehensive and scientific; PLS-DA has a good effect on general journals, but the better journals have a general effect, and cannot effectively distinguish Class A journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a methodology for systematically assessing the cost of journal subscriptions. The authors of the paper (hereafter "the researchers") established ratios comparing the list costs of journal articles as advertised by publishers against the cost per article of journal articles available in aggregated collections in library databases (hereafter "aggregating databases"). The researchers propose that the ratios can be used by libraries wishing to apply a standard methodology for assessing journal packages containing full-text articles. The study may be helpful for those librarians who seek to supplement qualitative information and other quantitative data, such as usage statistics, in order to demonstrate the library's rationale for providing journal access either by purchasing articles directly from a publisher as needed or by continuing to subscribe to an aggregating database. The aggregating databases reviewed in this study included representative aggregating databases commonly associated with the following fields of study: Social Sciences, Humanities, and Health Sciences; however, the methodology described in this article could be applied to other disciplines as well. The results of the study indicated that the ratios for Mean Cost/Package Subscription Price (MC/PSP), Median Cost/Package Subscription Price (MED/PSP) could be used in evaluating journal collections. The researchers suggest that future studies should be conducted to assess resource sharing and the availability of open access resource versions of articles as possible contributing factors to the purchase decisions associated with scholarly journal articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences is the property of Editorial Board of Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences 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.)

The virtual Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference 2021 provided attendees with the option to choose sessions from a list of eight tracks focusing on a particular subject. Many sessions focused on the ways libraries adapted to the changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, examining the changes in workflows and reducing spending and reevaluating collection development methods as well as cancelation methods due to budget cuts while still meeting the needs of communities during a transition of remote working and learning. Other sessions examine implementing different authentication methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of journal rankings has been an issue of frequent debate, likely due to the effect rankings can have on academic careers. While many rankings have been done over the years, few, if any, take into account what really matters to academics’ careers, how their own departments evaluate their research. This study collected department journal ranking lists from top international supply chain programmes. The resulting data, approximately 70% US and 30% international, presents a diverse perspective on the journals considered when analysing research productivity. A cluster analysis is performed and the results are compared with impact factors for select journals; we also discuss the differences highlighted between perceived rankings based on the departments’ geographic location. The results show that the field still has some divisions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Most of the journal evaluation systems results are given according to the disciplines, but different evaluation systems have different methods for journal classification. This paper interprets the method of journal evaluation based on the subject in detail of A Guide of the Core ]ournal in China hosted by Peking University Library, including the statistics of evaluation indicator value and the comprehensive calculation according to the subject classification of papers published and cited in journals, and the puts forward some ideas for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main directions of the International Conference «STI 2017: Open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators» (Paris, 6-8 September 2017) were the following according to the author's opinion: survey of geographical features, patterns of the science development and a choice of adequate indicators to evaluate these features and patterns; as well as development of new methods for data processing, sharing, analysis and use to assess science and technology. As the conference was held in the format of 4 parallel sessions being carried on simultaneously, the author was compelled to choose the presentations closest to his interests, namely, presentations on scientometrics and related issues. Such a choice was not subjective, because the author being an employee of the Belarusian National Technical University Scientific Library, is engaged in evaluating research activity of scientific organizations and universities (which have long been regarded as an objective of research libraries by serious library specialists of Belarus and Ukraine), as well as of scientific periodicals, and therefore is most interested in information about indicators of research activity of scientific organizations and universities and, especially, about indicators of value and quality of academic periodicals. The presentations that the author has managed to listen to and the discussions that he participated in, transferred via this mini-review seem to be helpful in further bibliometric studies conducted in the Belarusian National Technical University Scientific Library and to be of an interest to the readers of the journal.

Copyright of Informacao & Sociedade: Estudos is the property of Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Centro de Humanidades 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.)

Aim: To find out the molecular interaction of solute dextran of different concentration with sodium hydroxide as a solvent. Materials: Dextran of molecular weight 70000 dalton and aqueous 1(N) Sodium hydroxide. Methods: To Measure the density by specific gravity bottle, Viscosity by Ostwald's viscometer and ultrasonic velocity through ultrasonic interferometer of the solution and to calculate the thermo acoustical parameters using the measured parameters. Results: Ultrasonic wave propagation affects the physical properties of the medium and hence furnishes information on the physics of liquid and solution. I have used the measured parameters, like ultrasonic velocity, density, viscosity and evaluated parameters to understand the solute-solute and solute-solvent interactions in the solution containing dextran with sodium hydroxide. Conclusion: The effect of frequency on thermo acoustical parameters had been studied. From the above studies, the nature of forces between molecules such as hydrogen bonds, charge transfer complexes, breaking of hydrogen bonds and complexes had been interpreted. Intermolecular forces (electrostatic forces between charged particles of a permanent dipole and an induced dipole molecules) are weak. Structural characteristics of the components arising from geometrical fitting of one molecules in to another due to the difference in shape and size of the molecules. In the present study ultrasonic velocity (U), viscosity (?) and density (?) have been measured at temperature 308 K in the solution of sodium hydroxide with polymer dextran in the concentration range 0.1% to 1% at four different frequencies i.e. 1 MHz, 5 MHz, 9 MHz and 12 MHz using ultrasonic interferometer. The measured values of ultrasonic velocity (U), viscosity (?) and density (?) have been used to calculate the thermoacoustic parameters namely free volume (Vf), internal pressure (pi), attenuation coefficient /absorption coefficient (a), Rao's constant (R) and Wada's constant (W) etc, These acoustical parameters are highly essential in studying various types of molecular interactions in liquid solution and provide qualitative information regarding the physical nature and quality of the molecular interaction in binary mixture dextran 1(N) sodium hydroxide. The molecular interactions like electrostriction, acceptor-donor association, dipole-dipole association and hydrogen bonding have been analyzed based on these parameters. Molecular interactions provide an understanding of the fundamental problems concerned with the mechanism of chemical and biochemical catalysis and the paths of the chemical reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Niosomes are the non-ionic surface-active agent primarily based vesicles. The Key obstacle of Asenapine maleate have oral bioavailability (<2%) and extensive first pass effect. Objectives: The objective key of the existing work was to formulate Asenapine maleate loaded niosomes using quality by design and rectify it with some evaluation parameters to increase bioavailability, to lead better therapeutic effect and to minimize the side effects. Methods: Formulation of niosomes was done by three methods organic solvent injection method. Factorial design (32) experiments are significantly used to screen and to observe the effect of independent variables cholesterol and span 60 (X1, X2) on dependent variables particle size and entrapment efficiency (Y1, Y2). Results: The results revealed optimized formulation ASP-niosome A2 amongst other formulations which was found lowest particle size 84 ± 5 nm and highest % EE 70 ± 2.0%. In-vitro drug release of optimized noisome was found 68 ± 1.20 % at the end of 8 hr and zeta potential was -17.53mV which stabilized the niosomal suspension. Characterization by SEM not only indicated the spherical shape of the niosomes but also confirmed the formation of vesicle. Locomotor activity was found to be significant in in-vivo pharmacodynamic study. Pharmacokinetic study carried out and it showed Cmax and t1/2 of 16.12ng/mL and 37.18 hr which is better than reported parameters for drug. Conclusion: Thus, concluded that Asenapine maleate loaded niosomes having effective anti-psychotic activity with increased bioavailability could be prepared successfully by organic solvent injection method using span 60 and cholesterol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Scientometric profile of Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research has been carried out in this study to highlight and identify the year-wise growth of publication and citation, authorship pattern, prolific organizations, countries, citation profile, international outreach, two year and five year impact factor trend during year 2007-2018. Materials and Methods: Web of science core collection database of Clarivate Analytics was used to retrieve the data using advance search feature. Search field IS=0019-5464 was used to extract the data. Document type "Correction" was excluded from the study. Software Vosviewer visualizing scientific landscape version 1.6.11 were used for keyword and co-author network analysis. Results: During 2007-2018 there were 997 papers published in Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research with total citation 1714 and h-index 14. KLE University is the most contributing organization in Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. 30.2% of the articles published in journal are from foreign countries led by Turkey with 93 publications. Among top 10 highly cited papers, 9 articles published in the year 2011. Conclusion: Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research has world-wide coverage with 58 countries other than India and citation rate is showing increasing trend. Two year and Five year impact factor is all time high in year 2018 with 0.445 and 0.425 respectively. This paper highlights its significance in coverage of Pharmaceutical Sciences and allied areas hence useful for students, teachers, publisher and Librarian in formulating policies for journal selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly journals are usually rated on the basis of the number of citations received which directly translates to impact in the advancement of research. In this paper, the emphasis is on considering citations as a means for unveiling journal-to-journal associations. An Academic Libraries Consortium could use such kind of information in the process of planning for the collection of journal titles (subscriptions) that best serves the needs of its research user community. The innovative contribution is summarized as follows: (a) journal research impact measures are considered in the context of the well-defined user community (Target Authors Group, TAG) of the Hellenic Academic Libraries Link (HEAL-Link) Consortium, and (b) research impact measures are used to reveal interesting journal-to-journal associations, as well as journals of an interdisciplinary value, specifically for the microcosm of the given TAG community. The research outcomes are publicized by means of a number of interactive graphs via the J2J-GR web service (https://j2j.heal-link.gr). The latter is expected to be of use not just for the HEAL-Link office staff, but also for all the interested researchers, in Greece or abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we seek to contribute to discussions on how the quality of academic production in the field of political science should be evaluated using Brazil as a case study. We contrast the 'expert-driven approach' that is followed by CAPES, an agency of the Brazilian federal government with the 'citational' approach, which is based on the ranking of journals by mainstream indices of scientific research impact. With data provided by CAPES from 2010 to 2014, we examine to what extent journals that are ranked as having high quality by CAPES also have high impact indexes in the SCImago Journal rank index (SJR), the Hirsch index (h-index) calculated by SCImago, the h5-index and h5-median (based on the h-index period 05 years, calculated by Google Scholar Metrics), and the SNIP indicator (calculated by the CWTS Journal Indicators, included in the Scopus database). Our findings show that there is a positive, but weak correlation between citational criteria and the Qualis evaluation of the same journals. In ordered logistic regressions, we show that a journal's past Qualis scores are the most important factor for explaining its grades in the next evaluation. We show that once a journal's past Qualis score is considered, a journal's citational ranking does not influence its Qualis score with the exception of the SJR in the 2013-4 evaluation. Moreover, a journal's Qualis score is not influenced by the country of publication, language, or social science focus, all else equal.

The best-known method of assessing the quality of journals is Impact Factor. It is lesser known in academia that there are also other ways of evaluating academic publications. The present study ranks geography journals based on the following systems of international journal assessment: Jour-nal Citation Report (JCR-index), Eigenfactor, Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJ R-index), Hirsch-index, and Index Copernicus. Special attention is given to the performance of certain regions and countries. In addition to journal evaluation systems, the paper discusses information relevant to geography from Ulrichsweb and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), while also analyzing the discipline-specific GeoBase. The results of the empirical research indicate that some journals show outstanding achievement using one set of criteria, while others’ performance is considered more prominent with other criteria. Thus, working with a variety of evaluation systems provides a much more realistic and distinguishing assessment of the real value and quality of academic journals, and also of the performance of the authors publishing in these journals.

The Brazilian system for the evaluation of journals Qualis Periódicos and the main changes announced for the new version are presented. The characteristics of the new criteria based on four principles are discussed: unified classification, classification by main areas, Qualis referencia, and bibliometric indicators. The main criticisms and problems of this new version with special emphasis on the characteristics of the area of Communication and Information and its community of researchers, are reviewed. This article analyzes the new provisional values of the Spanish journals of the area and concludes that, similarly to the Brazilian journals, they overall present lower values in the system. Finally, it is discussed the consequences of this overall drop of values for the relations between the Spanish and Brazilian scientific systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Arquitectura (1657-0308) is the property of Universidad Catolica de Columbia, Facultad de Arquitectura 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.)

A radical reform of research assessment was recently launched in China. It seeks to replace a focus on Web of Science-based indicators with a balanced combination of qualitative and quantitative research evaluation, and to strengthen the local relevance of research in China. It trusts the institutions to implement the policy within a few months but does not provide the necessary national platforms for coordination, influence and collaboration on developing shared tools and information resources and for agreement on definitions, criteria and protocols for the procedures. Based on international experiences, this article provides constructive ideas for the implementation of the new policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have developed an evaluation procedure and performed an expert evaluation of the Russian academic journals to select promising journals under the "Support of Development Programmes for Academic Journals to Be Indexed in International Scientometric Databases" project. The aim of the article is to describe in detail the methods of the selection process for the project and its primary results. Selection of the journals falls into four stages: development of the preliminary list of journals (2,856 journals in the long list), evaluation of the journals from the preliminary list, evaluation of journal strategic plans and the final selection for financial support. As a result, 100 journals have been selected to be supported financially. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the Brazilian national system of journal evaluation Qualis Periódicos. It reviews some of the fundamentals of journal evaluation based on citation analysis and inclusion in databases. This paper also discusses the evaluation of journals based on national lists and the characteristics of the Brazilian evaluation system. It analyzes the criteria and examples of the Communication and Information area as well as some of the arguments against the system. It concludes that Qualis Periódicos is too dependent on the opinion of experts and that the development and application criteria are not sufficiently clear. The conclusions point out some possibilities that could be followed in the future to improve the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional knowledge refers to the local or indigenous knowledge which has been accumulated practiced and orally transmitting from generations to generations thus indicates cultural or ethnic identity of a particular community or geographic region. Traditional knowledge has great role in drug discovery, rural engineering, and various bioperspective research. Therefore, research in this field is vital for scientific community, conservation of the knowledge and protection from unethical patents. The Indian Journal of traditional knowledge is covering the important findings from all over the world in the area of folklore medicine. The study of impact and global visibility of the Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge will indicate the status of folk knowledge covered, trend of research, and set goals to cover the area/tribes for undocumented literature of folk medicine. This paper analyses the research papers published in Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge (IJTK) during 2007-2017 on various scientometric parameters viz. year wise publication, geographical distribution, year wise citation pattern of article published, occurrence of keywords, inflow of papers, journal's rank in the various category, number of tribes covered in IJTK, prolific institutions, Journals citing IJTK, impact factor trend over the years, etc. It has been observed that 16 papers have received 20 or more citation and there are 9 citing journals having more than 10 impact factor, including two journals of Nature publishing group, i.e., Nature biotechnology (41.66) and Nature climate change (19.3). The journal covered 206 tribes of the world and 27 Indian states. The current impact factor is 1.27 and indexed in all the reputed databases of the world and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a content analysis of theJournal of Strategic Marketing (JSM)over 24 years from the journal’s inception in 1993 to 2017. No similar attempt on an analysis ofJSMhas been found. Analyses were completed to examine how the journal has developed and to uncover relevant information for editors, reviewers, researchers and future authors ofJSMby analysing research themes, author and manuscript characteristics, and citation metrics. The findings reveal an increase in multi-authored articles, an increase in empirical research and in the internationalization of researchers. These and other factors illuminate sources and implications of the journal’s current state. The relevance of these findings is discussed as it pertains to the future success and publishing opportunities in theJournal of Strategic Marketing. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Journals are ranked in the subject categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) according to their impact factors (JIF). The calculation of this indicator includes both citations received from other journals and self-citations from the journal itself. In this paper the current model of the JCR is compared with an alternate model using the JIF without self-citations as a variable. In order to do this, simulations were carried out using JIF without self-citations as an alternative variable. We studied the relationship between the two variables (JIF with self-citations and JIF without self-citations), the gain obtained by the journals with the usual JIF with self-citations, the changes in the ranking in the whole JCR, and changes in the internal ranking in the JCR's subject categories. A small negative correlation was found between the gain that the journals obtained and their JIF. The results obtained suggest that if JIF without self-citations were used as the variable, the ranking of journals in the JCR and within the subject categories would be, in general, very different from the current one. The quantification of these differences is one of the more interesting results of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]