Subject Chair
Download
Report
Transcript Subject Chair
|
The Scopus journal evaluation
process from the perspective
of the Subject Chair
World-Class Scientific Journals – 2014: Improving quality and expanding presence in the world
information resources
Moscow, May 19 – 21, 2014
Karen Holland
Editor in Chief Nurse Education in Practice ( Elsevier Journal )
Subject Chair (Nursing & Health Professions & Education )
SCOPUS Content Selection Advisory Board (CSAB)
0
|
Layout of the presentation
• Scopus evaluation process – in short
• Role of the Subject Chair
• Key review areas
•
•
•
•
•
Journal Policy
Quality of Content
Journal Standing
Regularity
Online availability
• Case study
• Resources for Editors
1
|
SCOPUS : How do journals get included ?
In Brief !
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Scopus Content Selection Advisory Board ( CSAB )
http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/csab/members
Selection system is similar to EES but called STEP
http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/contentselection
Subject Chairs : Role is an Editorial one - managing the review
process , supporting decisions and giving feedback to Elsevier
We can also see journals included in Scopus at the Scimago web –
site :
http://roscardio.ru/en/cardiovascular-therapy-and-prevention.html
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=russia&tip=jou
2
|
Scopus: Role of Subject Chair
• Scopus CSAB : 14 Subject Chairs in identified Specialist fields
• Subject Chairs are the individuals responsible for the final decision
to include a journal into Scopus or not
• Subject Chairs use the STEP Programme to evaluate journals
submitted
• STEP Programme has been developed over past 4 years –involving
continual feedback from Subject Chairs and CSAB members
• Being a Subject Chair is at times very challenging but also
rewarding
• Subject Chairs are in essence responsible for the ‘quality’ of Scopus
content and therefore the ‘science’ available for researchers
worldwide
3
|
Subject Chair : process of evaluation
• Journals are submitted to the Scopus Content team and following
initial evaluation against set criteria are then forwarded to the
relevant Subject Chair
• The Journal will then appear in the Subject Chair Desk Top in STEP
3.3. ( See in Case Study )
• Other Reviewers can be invited to review the journal but in the main
the Subject Chairs undertake this work using their expertise ,
experience as editors and expertise in evaluation of journals in the
STEP system
• The journal review is undertaken within key categories
4
|
Making Decisions : Subject Chair role
• The Advice to journal editors and publishers :
• Track record of Publication over 2 years ( no submission until
published 2 years )
• Evidence of consistency and frequency of publication on time : also
important is the actual content of the papers and their authorship
skills and knowledge
• Evidence of editorial clarity of purpose : aims and scope , direction
of the journal; editorial board, editors , author guidance, visibility for
potential authors , web-site quality and accessibility, English
language abstracts and / or articles ( Case study *)
5
|
The Subject Chair Review : Key areas
• Title review
- Journal Policy
- Quality of Content
- Journal Standing
- Regularity
- Online availability
6
|
Journal Policy : Key evaluation ( 1)
• Convincing editorial scope : Is the editorial policy of this title, as stated
in the aims & scope, convincing and of relevance for Scopus users? (
Not convincing Poor Fair Good Excellent )
• Level of peer-review - All titles that are covered by Scopus should be
peer-reviewed. There are different levels of peer-review: (1) Main editor
peer review - Only one (or two) main editor(s) review and select all the
submitted articles for each issue.
• (2) Open peer review - Reviewers are aware of the identity of the
authors, and authors are also aware of the identity of reviewers. There
are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in
each issue.
• (3) Single-blind peer review - Reviewers are aware of the identity of the
authors, but authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are
at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each
issue.
• (4) Double-blind peer- review - Reviewers are unaware of the identity of
the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers.
There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of
articles in each issue.
7
|
Journal Policy ( 2)
• Diversity in geographic distribution of editors : Whether the diversity
in the editors’ regional origin is appropriate, depends on the aims &
scope of a title. A subject area dedicated to a regionally relevant
topic (geography or history for example) may not have a global
community of researchers; and a low regional diversity among
editors would be in line with the editorial concept. On the other hand,
in the case of a general journal with editors only from one faculty or
country, the regional diversity is likely not to be in line with the
editorial concept.
• ( No editorial board ;Regional diversity of editorial board is not in
line with editorial concept ;Regional diversity of editorial board is
partly in line with editorial concept ;Regional diversity of editorial
board is entirely in line with editorial concept)
8
|
Journal Policy ( 3)
• Diversity in geographic distribution of authors Whether the diversity
in the authors’ regional origin is appropriate, depends on the aims &
scope of a title. A subject area dedicated to a regionally relevant
topic (geography or history for example) may not have a global
community of researchers; and a low regional diversity
among authors would be in line with the editorial concept. On the
other hand, in the case of a general journal with authors only from
one faculty or country, the regional diversity is likely not to be in line
with the editorial concept.
•
Regional diversity of authors is not in line with editorial concept
Regional diversity of authors is partly in line with editorial concept
Regional diversity of authors is entirely in line with editorial concept
9
|
Quality of content : Evaluation ( 1)
• Academic contribution to field To what extent does this title make a
unique contribution compared with the existing literature in the field?
• (Extremely poor; Poor ;Fair ;Good ;Extremely good )
• Clarity of abstracts The abstract is the only information, next to
article title and keywords, that is displayed in Scopus. Therefore the
quality of the abstract is of high importance. Both the content
(whether it gives a useful summary of the article) and the language
(whether it is written in correct English) should be assessed.
•
( No abstracts ; Abstract non-English ; Abstracts in English, but
unclear and/or not enough detail ; Abstracts in English, fairly clear
and/or fairly detailed ; Abstracts in English, very clear and very
detailed )
10
|
Quality of content ( 2)
• Quality of and conformity with stated aims Is the actual content of
the title (see sample documents) in line with the stated aims & scope
of the title?
( Extremely poor ;Poor ;Fair ;Good ;Extremely good )
• Readability of articles The readability of the sample articles can be
assessed using two criteria: Language (language should be clear
and without mistakes) Layout and format (the layout should be clear
and the quality of figures should be good)
• ( Extremely poor ;Poor; Fair ;Good ;Extremely good )
11
|
Journal Standing : Evaluation
• Citedness of journal Based on the citation information provided, how
well cited is this title compared to other titles in the field?
• (Scored by Scopus team; Not cited ;Poorly cited ;Fairly cited ;Well
cited; Extremely well cited )
• Editor standing The scientific impact of an editor based on
the citation information revealed in their Scopus profile could be one
indication of editor standing, as can other information from home
pages or curriculum vitae. How do you rate the standing of the
editor(s) in the academic community?
• Very poor standing: Poor standing :Fair standing ;Good standing ;
Extremely good standing
• Main Handling Editors: Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3
12
|
Regularity : Evaluation
• Regularity of publication Is the publication delayed, based on the
announced publication schedule?
•
Scored by Scopus team : By 4 or more issues delayed ;By 2-3
issues delayed ; By 1 issue delayed ; Published on time
• Poor Fair Good Extremely good
13
|
On-Line availability : Evaluation
• Content available online Scopus is not only used to find relevant literature, but –
ideally – also to link out to it. Therefore the electronic availability of the actual
content on a homepage is a clear advantage.
•
Scored by Scopus team : Recent content not available online ; Recent content
available online ; English-language homepage available ; (Scopus gives
exposure to a significant share of non-English-language content. When linking
out from the record or abstract to the full-text paper, users will find it helpful if the
homepage has an English navigation, so they can understand further
information.)
•
Scored by Scopus team : Not in English ;Partly in English ;Entirely in English ;
• Elsevier assesses the quality of journal homepages mainly based on two
aspects.
-
(1) Does it contain crucial information about a journal such as: scope and aims, ISSN
(and E-ISSN), editorial board members, scientific society, subscription details, etc.?
(2) Is it professionally designed with aspects on: how intuitively does it give the abovementioned information?
Scored by Scopus team : No homepage available ;Extremely poor ;Poor ;Fair ;Good
;Extremely good
14
|
Case study :
• Russian Journal of Cardiology
http://roscardio.ru/en/russian-journal-of-cardiology.html
• Evaluation of this journal : use the Scopus framework
• How does it evaluate for inclusion in Scopus ? Based on what is
visible to us and not the complete STEP system documentation and
detailed information from the proposer of the Journal for Scopus
inclusion .
• Journal Policy
Quality of Content
Journal Standing
Regularity
Online availability
• What is the general view ?
15
|
Resources for Editors
1. http://www.elsevier.com/editors
2. http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/home#journal-editors
3. http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/toolkit
4. http://publicationethics.org/
5. http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
6. http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-andauthors
16
|
Спасибо!
Thank you & Questions
Look out for more developments from Scopus @
http://blog.scopus.com/
http://twitter.com/Scopus
www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence
17