Transcript Powerpoint Presentation

Editor Seminar in Journal Publishing
Attaining Excellence in Scholarly Communication
Presented by: Anne Kitson, Executive Vice President, Health and Medical Sciences,. Elsevier
Международная научно-практическая конференция
«Научное издание международного уровня: проблемы и решения при подготовке и
включении в индексы цитирования и реферативные базы данных»
15-17 мая 2012 г., ВИНИТИ РАН, Москва, Россия
Agenda
1.
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2.
Scholarly Communication in Russia
3.
Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4.
Improving the quality of Scientific Journals
2
Agenda
1.
A Brief History of Journal publishing
•
•
•
•
•
The start of journal publishing
The role of publishing
The journal workflow
Elsevier in publishing
Trends in Scholarly Communication
Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
2.
3
Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677)
• Born in Germany
• Resident in London from 1652
• Indefatigable correspondent with
major scientists of his day
• Appointed (joint) Secretary to the
Royal Society in 1663
• Created (as editor and commercial
publisher) the first scientific journal
in 1665
• Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society
4
Differentiation/Fragmentation
1665
First journals
1800
hundred journals
“natural philosophy”
mathematics, astronomy, physics,
chemistry, botany, zoology, medicine
1900
2000s
thousand journals
23 thousand journals
many hundreds of
specialized fields
5
Relationship of Journals & Researcher Growth
1.6
Index (1981=1.00)
US r&d workers
journals
articles
1.2
0.8
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
More researchers  more journals
6
What do modern researchers want as authors?
Registration
• Register a discovery as theirs and made by them on a
certain date
• Assert ownership and achieve priority
Validation
• Get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality
stamped by publication in a journal of known quality
• Establish a reputation, and get reward
Dissemination
• Let their peers know what they have done
• Attract recognition and collaboration
Archive
• Leave a permanent record of their research
• Renown, immortality
7
Elsevier has a long history of scientific publishing
The Publishing House of Elzevir was first established
in 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at the University of
Leiden, Holland
Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by Lowys
Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modern
Elsevier Company in 1880
Among those authors who published with Elsevier are,
Galileo, Erasmus, Descartes, Alexander Fleming, Julius
Verne
8
But there are thousands of scientific publishers
23,000
9
Examples of our 2,000 journal titles
10
Elsevier’s Journal Program today
• 1,800 journals within the STM Journals Publishing group within Elsevier
• STM Journals managed by 6 publishing groups, each specializing in a cluster of subject
areas
• Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios specific to a
discipline/community, e.g. Computational Intelligence. There are 146 journal portfolios
in total.
11
The Elsevier Journal Publishing Cycle
•1,000 new editors per year
•20 new journals per year
• 9.8 million articles
now available
• 30 Million
Researchers
• 180+ countries
• 4,500+ institutions
• 480 million+
downloads per year
• 800,000+ article submissions per year
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Archive and
promote
use
Manage
peer review
Publish and
disseminate
Edit and
prepare
Production
• 40 – 90% of
articles rejected
• 7,000 editors
•70,000 editorial board
members
• 300,000 reviewers
• 1.6 million referee
reports/yr
• 600,000 authors
• 6.5 million author/publisher
communications / year
• 250,000 new articles produced each year
• 185 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged
12
Trends in publishing
• Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”
◦ 1997:
print only
◦ 2005:
40% e-only (many e-collections)
30% print only
30% print-plus-electronic
• Changing role of “journals” due to e-access
• Increased usage of articles, at lower cost per article
• Electronic submission
◦ Increased manuscript inflow
• Experimentation with new publishing models
◦ E.g. “author pays” models, “delayed open access”, DeepDyve, etc.
• Experimentation with new peer review models
◦ PLoS ONE, open peer review, PeerChoice, etc.
13
Online submission and publication is the norm
14
Newest tools: citation tracking and bibliometrics
15
Elsevier peer review experiments
Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
(NPRC)
•
•
•
Enable the sharing of review reports between
journals (at the author’s request) to run a more
efficient and fast peer review process overall
37 journals in neuroscience across publishers and
societies participate
Current uptake low (1-2%), pilot continues
Submit
reviews
Copy of assignments
Keep informed
Host &
monitor
Reviewer Mentorship Programme
•
An educational programme for postgraduate students to become certified article reviewers, based on a
proven need for more reviewers, guidance on reviewing papers, and a common reviewing standard
•
Programme consists of three phases
•
•
Reviewer workshop (local or virtual)
•
Traineeship in which trainee performs a number of reviews for an editor, under the supervision of a
mentor
•
Graduation and certification
Pilot is running in biology and pharmacology areas
16
Newest tools: imaging, discovery
3-D imaging
technologies
Geographical
image search
Semantic web
technologies
17
Newest tools: Article of the Future
Traditional article structure
18
Newest tools: Article of the Future
19
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
1.
•
•
•
•
Article output
Citations
Regional ranking
Use of online resources
Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
3.
20
Article publishing in Russia
# articles published
% share of world articles
CAGR ‘04-10 – 2.3%
% share of world citations
FWRI (World = 1.00)
21
Russia Federation: Strong Focus on Math & Physics
Publication output by subject area (2006-2010)
Russian Publication spread over discipline
Material
Sciences
Physics and
Astronomy
Chemistry
23
Regional publication growth comparison
24
Regional ranking
25
Global trends - Productivity Increasing following
“p to e-migration”
Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it
Time Spent
Gathering
42% 52%
45% 55%
44% 58%
46% 42%
44% 49%
44% 53%
Time Spent
Analyzing
58% 48%
55% 45%
56% 42%
54% 58%
56% 51%
56% 47%
2001 2005 2001 2005
Sales/Mktg
IT
2001 2005
Sci/Eng
2001 2005
Mfg/Purch
2001 2005
Total
2001 2005
Fin/HR/Legal
Compared to print-only era
• Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year
• Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals
Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database & Dr Carol Tenopir, UTK
26
University College London study confirms strong correlation
between e-journal usage, research output and funding in the UK
“Doubling in
downloads, from 1
to 2 million, is
statistically
associated with
dramatic - but not
necessarily causal increases in
research
productivity”
Papers up 207%
PhD awards up
168%
Research grants
and contract
income up 324%
“Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact.” Research Information Network Report. April 2009
Even stronger as
downloads increase
further
27
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
1.
• Journal bibliometrics
o Impact Factor
o Eigen factor
o SCImago Journal Rank
o Source-Normalized Impact per Paper
• Personal bibliometrics
4.
Improving the quality of scientific journals
28
Bibliometrics at the Journal level
There are multiple ways to assess journals
Subjective methods
• Reputation
• Local interest
• Core audience
“Objective” methods
• Impact Factor
• Eigenfactor
• SCImago journal Ranking (SJR)
• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
29
What is the Impact Factor (IF)?
Impact Factor
[the average annual number of citations per article published]
For example, the 2009 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as follows:
• A = the number of times articles published in 2007 and 2008 were cited in indexed journals
during 2009
• B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials
and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2007 and 2008
• 2009 impact factor = A/B
• e.g. 600 citations
=2
150 + 150 articles
30
Impact Factor
• The Impact Factor measures all citations (numerator), irrespective of article types
• Abstracts, Editorials and Letters have positive effects on the Impact Factor
• The Source Item count (denominator) includes only Research Articles, Reviews
and Notes
• All types of self-citations are included
31
Impact Factor and other bibliometric parameters
32
Impact Factor Pros and Cons
33
Impact Factor Pros and Cons
34
Subject Area Influence on Impact Factors
35
Beyond the impact factor: new metrics
• Eigen Factor
• SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
36
Eigen Factor
• Developed by Carl Bergstrom in 2007 to address some of the weaknesses of the
•
•
•
•
•
impact factor
“We can view the Eigenfactor score of a journal as a rough estimate of how often a
journal will be used by scholars”
Uses algorithms to assess importance of each journal (like Google page rank)
5 year window (IF is 2)
Allows citation behavior to set fields, not pre-set fields
Counts all citations, regardless of source
37
Pros and Cons
Pros
• Ranks more than journal articles
• Longer citation window
• Like SJR, scores based on ranking
Cons
• Very large journals will have extremely high Eigenfactor scores simply based upon their
size
• “Citations” not necessarily articles (peer review article? Editorial? Tabloid?)
• Does not promote cross discipline comparison
38
New metrics are now available
How are these calculated
39
Key features of SJR and SNIP
40
Bibliometrics at the individual level – the H-index
• Measure proposed in 2005 by the physicist Jorge E. Hirsch.
• Rates a scientist’s performance based on their career publications, as measured by the
lifetime number of citations each article receives.
• Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality (number of citations) of a
scientist’s publications.
• Official definition: “A scientist has index h if h of their N papers have at least h citations
each, and the other (N – h) papers have no more than h citations each.”
• Translation of definition: If you list all a scientist’s publications in descending order of the
number of citations received to date, their h-index is the highest number of their papers,
h, that have each received at least h citations. So, their h-index is 10 if 10 papers have
each received at least 10 citations; their h-index is 81 if 81 papers have each received
at least 81 citations. Their h-index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1
citation, but also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations – and so on..
41
H-index
Fig. 1. Schematic curve of number of citations versus paper number, with papers numbered in order of
decreasing citations. The intersection of the 45° line with the curve gives h. The total number of citations is the
area under the curve.
42
Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences
42
Pros and Cons
Pros
• Based on citations to author’s corpus, not journal
• Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus
• Easy to understand and calculate
Cons
• Can be biased against young researchers
• Does not differentiate negative citations
• Does not differentiate or weigh citing source
• Does not address differences per field
• Includes self citations
43
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
1.
• How do authors choose a journal
• The roles of the journal
• The people involved
44
What makes great journals ?
• It is NOT technology, or big investments, or great promotion ……
• Journals are based on the communities they serve. They are like a living organism and
rely on the editors, authors and reviewers that make up that community. They serve the
community as long as the community can derive value from the journal. By doing so the
community in turn builds greater brand value for the journal. Both the journal and the
community benefit from this.
45
Four important concepts
• A journal has no value without the active support of high level scientists
• Scale helps to be innovative in improving service
• Top journals are international as science is international
• Quality attracts quality
46
From a journal publishing perspective:
responsibilities
Key author needs:
• certification of research,
• continuation of funding and employment,
• recognition and career
Reviewer
Editor
Author
Publisher
paper
Research
Output
journal
data
etc.
47
How do authors choose a journal?
• They already know the subject coverage of their research paper and its quality and
•
•
•
•
approach
They select the set of most appropriate journals in terms of subject coverage and
readers
They match the general quality of their paper (best, good, ok) to a class of journals (top,
average, run-of-the-mill) with the same subject and approach
From that class they select a specific journal based upon experience
Recommendation from professor
48
How do Authors Choose a Journal?
Key Factors:
Marginal Factors:
Which Category?
Which Journal?
Journal Hierarchy
Impact Factor
Track Record
Reputation
A
Editorial Standard
Publication speed
J
J
International
Coverage
J
J
J
B
J
?
Quality/Colour
Illustrations
Service Elements, e.g.
author instructions,
quality of proofs, reprints,
etc
Experience as Referee
?
A&I Coverage
Society Link
?
?
Access to Audience
Self Evaluation
J
J
J
J
C
J
49
What matters most to Authors?
Elsevier Author Feedback Programme
Refereeing Speed
Refereeing Standard
Reputation
Impact Factor
Audience/Readership
Production Speed
Editor/Editorial Board
Publishing Services
Final Quality
And thus also critically
important to editors
Role of the Journal Editor
• Public face of the journal
• Decides on what gets published
◦ Type and standard of paper
• Sets editorial policies
◦ With editorial board & publishers’ editor
• Runs the peer review process
◦ Supported by an editorial office funded by the publisher
51
Peer Review
• A methodological check
◦ Soundness of argument
◦ Supporting data and cited references
◦ [Sometimes] impactfulness/’importance’ of research
• Done by two anonymous academics
◦ (“The reviewers”)
• Reviewers peer review without payment
◦ Costs of administering the selection of reviewers, tracking and collecting reviews
are borne by the journal
• On average 30% more papers are reviewed than published – Elsevier rejection rate
65%
52
Role of the Publisher
• Editorial (journal brand) management
◦ Acquisition of content
◦ Monitor research trends
◦ Monitor editorial office efficiency and efficacy
◦ Monitor key success indicators
◦ Editorial renewal
• Business management
• Production and online hosting
• Sales and marketing
53
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
1.
• Strategic planning
o Define your journal position
o Indexing
o Market analysis
o Journal action plan
54
What makes a journal successful, once it has found a
community?
1. Strategic journal management (brand management)
2. Wide visibility
3. Quality control, peer review and use of journal metrics
4. Customer feedback
55
International
Career making
publications
Visibility of Regional
Science
International scene
Not all equally
important
Will not publish
cutting edge
research
Not necessarily
unimportant
Regional
Readers
Different journals - Different choices – Different roles
Platform for
Students (PhD,
PostDocs)
Regional
International
Authors
56
International
Regional
Readers
Strategic Choices
Examples: Pramana (India), Current Applied
Physics (S. Korea)
• Increasing number of journals (related
to global scientific development)
• Limited international recognition
• Regional loyalty
• Generally Indexed by major indexing
services
• Reasonable visibility
• Variable in quality
Examples: Nature, Physical Review, Cell,
and many Elsevier journals
• Many journals already
• International recognition
• Limited regional loyalty
• Indexed by major indexing services
• Wide visibility
• Quality above a certain minimum
threshold
Example journals: Cerâmica (Brazil)
• Very large number of journals
• Very limited international recognition
• Regional loyalty
• Indexed by only a few major indexing
services
• Regional visibility
• Quality unclear
Example: Epidemiology
• Addressing regional issues by outside
experts.
• Limited number of journals, especially
health sciences
• Limited international recognition
• Limited visibility
• Extremely fluctuating quality
Regional
International
Authors
57
Scopus covers “local” content for local audiences
58
Interest for inclusion in Scopus is still growing
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2006
2007
Titles submitted
2008
2009
2010
Titles selected
59
Quality selection by independent, international board
60
Scopus selection criteria a combination
of quantitative and qualitative measures
Journal
policy
(35%)
Quality of
content
(20%)
Citedness
(25%)
Regularity
(10%)
Accessibility
(10%)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
English language abstracts available
Eligibility
All cited references in Roman alphabet
•
•
•
•
No delay in publication schedule
•
•
•
Content available online
Convincing editorial concept/policy
Level of peer-review
Diversity in provenance of editors
Peer-review
English abstracts
Regular publication
Diversity in provenance of authors
Academic contribution to the field
Clarity of abstracts
Conformity with journal’s aims & scope
Readability of articles
Citedness of journal articles in Scopus
Citedness of editors in Scopus
English-language journal home page
Quality of home page
61
From Strategy to Action
Analysis &
Objectives per
segment and journal
Elsevier S&T
Strategy
S&T Journal
Strategy
Portfolio strategies
Market
Analysis

Objectives 2011
I) Toxicology
•IF increase to 2.4
• Market share US 28%
•X
•Y
2) Pharmacology
Customer feedback
& other market intelligence
Activities per
journal
Toxicology Letters (2011)

•25 review articles published by
US authors
•Appoint Harvard editor
•Manage rejection rate,
and article flow to 2550
accepted articles by 31-12
•Host one reviewer workshop
•Reduce editorial time to 16 wks
•etc
MARKET
62
Portfolio & Journal Action plans for each portfolio
and journal
PORTFOLIO PLAN:
•
•
•
•
•
•
replacement strategy
Special issue &review article
strategy
Emerging areas and markets / New
journal launches
Customer (author, editor, reviewer)
services
Society opportunities
Commercial Sales opportunities
Marketing
Results in journal specific actions
• Editorial policies
• Per Editor: retention and
Per journal:
Journal
Action Plan
2011
63
Example of journal action plan
Journal of Scientific Research
Possible Action
Current Status
Desired Status
Action
Deadline
Impact Factor
1.650
2.300
Consider reduction in size
Quality
Strong
Continue as is
None
N/A
Editorial office/ Secretary
Yes
Continue as is
None
N/A
None
Succession planned
Appoint deputy Editor
December 2011
Quality
Fair (section A) to Good (Asia)
Strong
Appoint new editor section A; Editor from US
December 2011
Quantity
2
3
Appoint one more editor
December 2011
Geographical Split
Reasonable
Ad US
As above
December 2011
EES
live
N/A
N/A
Physical quality
good
good
N/A
Early Web Visibility
No
Yes
implement
June 2011
Refereeing (editorial) time
30 weeks
20 weeks
Scopus to reviewers/ new editor
August/Dec. 2011
Online Production time
10 weeks
7 weeks
Agree on SLA with production
March 2011
Print production time
12 weeks
9 weeks
Rejection rate
50%
50%
Editor in Chief
Deputy Editor
Quality
Editors
Publication Speed
N/A
For 9each journal an annual6journal action plan,
outlining the required
Time to first decision
Reduce time
actions to improve journal in line with overall strategic direction
# of issues/ pages 2006
Special issue policy
# of special issues
Type of SI’s
Paper flow
64
64
Portfolio and journal management based on market
knowledge, research and continuous feedback
• Author feedback programme => all authors are asked for feedback:
Against Benchmarks:
Against Competition:
• Editor and Reviewer feedback programmes follow similar approach.
65
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
1.
•
•
•
•
•
Measuring Quality
Influencing impact metrics
Assessing themed issues
Uncited articles
Assessing top articles
66
Quality
Can it be measured?
67
What is Quality?
• The assessment of quality and value is at the heart of the scholarly
communication system
◦ Peer review for acceptance of papers
◦ Judgements about the quality of a journal
◦ Assessment of the work of a researcher from where s/he publishes
◦ Judgements about the quality of institutions based on their publication
record
◦ Institutions now measured via a growing number of analytics tools such
as our own SciVal
68
Quality control. What types of tools are available?
• Scopus Citation Analysis
• Non-cited Paper Analysis
• Author Feedback Programme
• Reviewer Feedback Programme
• Editor Feedback Programme
69
The Refereeing Process
• Independent refereeing of submitted manuscripts is critical to the
scientific publishing process in validating the quality of a piece of work.
• Referees provide
◦ an objective assessment of a submission, and recommend whether a piece
of work advances the field sufficiently to warrant publication.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relevance, novelty
Relevant work is cited, and discussed as appropriate
Methodology is appropriate, and properly described
Conclusions are supported by the results reported
Evaluate the statistical analyses
Ensure that the paper is unambiguous and comprehensible, even if the
English is not perfect
The Referee recommends, the Editor decides
70
Finding and Keeping reviewers
• Make use of Editorial Board Members for reviewing, and consider rotating off Board
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Members who are not regularly refereeing
Think twice before using referees who have not been active in research in the last 5
years
The best referees are often young professors, researchers, post-doctorates, emeritus
professors and authors who have recently published in the journal
Reject very poor papers outright without sending them to a reviewer.
Ask referees whether they are able to review a manuscript before sending it.
Give your request a personal touch by customising template letters where possible
Develop a set of clear referee guidelines.
Notify the referees of your final decision on the paper.
Do not 'penalise' timely referees by sending them new articles for review immediately
after they have returned a set of comments.
Thank referees who are doing a good job
Develop a reviewer loyalty programme
…
…
71
How can you improve the quality of your journal as
an Editor?
• Attract the best authors
• Find the best referees
• Have an efficient review process with short turnaround times
• Commission invited/review articles
• Claim “hot” areas in your discipline that are not currently “owned” by other journals by
publishing a thematic issue on it
72
Improving the impact metrics
• Better papers (easier said than done)
• Fewer papers
• More reviews
• More special issues (invited authors)
• Publish invited works in January (longer citation window)
• BUT DO NOT
◦ Require citations to your journal
◦ Write editorials about your journal’s articles just to cite them
73
Scopus Citation Analysis
74
Scopus Issue Analysis
Citation analysis at the issue level can answer the following questions:
• What is the level of citation for the issues published?
• How are my special issues doing in comparison to the regular issues?
• Are our review/invited articles contributing as expected?
75
Scopus Issue Analysis
Off scale
(26.5)
14
AVERAGE CITATIONS PER
PAPER / PER ISSUE
- Regular Issue
- Structural Elucidation
- Thematic Issue
- Festschrift issue
10
8
- Shading indicates issue
contains review article(s)
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Average citations per paper
12
59
60
2002
61
62
63
2003
64
65
66
2004
2005
76
Scopus Impact Analysis on a Specific Set of Articles
• How do citations develop in time?
• Are there specific areas that attract a higher number of citations?
• How does the number of citations relate to the number of publications?
• Perform your own bibliometric calculations
77
Non-Cited Article Analysis
78
% Non-Cited Articles per Journal
Uncited % - 5yr
Subject Category ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
Year - 2005
Rank
Journal
Uncited % - 5yr
1
FIELD ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AND TECHNOLOGY
2.78%
2
REGULATED RIVERS-RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT
4.26%
3
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
14.29%
4
JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART B-CRITICAL REVIEWS
19.30%
5
APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
22.99%
6
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
23.03%
7
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
23.49%
8
JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY
25.22%
9
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
25.34%
10
JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE
25.56%
11
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
25.89%
12
CLIMATIC CHANGE
26.03%
13
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
26.13%
14
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
26.48%
15
WATER RESEARCH
26.58%
16
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES
26.67%
17
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
26.76%
18
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
26.80%
19
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
26.88%
20
REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
26.98%
79
Non-cited Article Analysis
Aim
Bring down the number of uncited articles as much as possible.
Important to determine
• What type of articles are most cited?
• What type of articles remain uncited?
80
What are the top-cited papers?
Are there certain topics
that seem to get cited a lot?
81
What are the non-cited papers?
Can you distinguish any trends
in the articles that do not get cited?
82
Agenda
A Brief History of Journal publishing
2. Scholarly Communication in Russia
3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact
4. Improving the quality of scientific journals
1.
• Policy Issues
o Copyright
o Plagiarism
83
Policy issues
Some examples
84
Plagiarism
• Editors and Publishing have seen a rise in cases of plagiarism
◦ “Plagiarism” is:
• the literal copying of the entirety of another's article or paper or other text
• the literal copying of large portions of another’s work
• the substantive paraphrasing of another’s work
◦ In all of these cases, the authors whose work is being copied or reproduced may
also have legal claims with respect to copyright infringement or violations of their
moral rights.
85
Other Ethical Issues
• Some authors are also engaging in other unethical practices
◦ Duplicate (Double) submission
• Submission of the same paper to more than one journal while decision from
another journal is still pending
◦ Repetitive (Redundant) submission
• Reporting the same results or methodologies in somewhat different form
◦ Improper authorship
• Crediting individuals who did NOT provide a substantive contribution to the
research and the analysis presented
• Lack of credit to individuals who DID provide a substantive contribution
◦ Lack of conflict of interest disclosure
◦ Not adhering to guidelines involving treatment, consent, or privacy of research or
testing subjects
86
Conclusion
87
Conclusion
• Journal publishing is about audience and role
◦ Subject, Readers and Authors
• Evaluation process is continuous
• Measurables are important
◦ Submissions (Origin, Subjects, etc.)
◦ Bibliometrics (H-index, Impact Factor, Citations, etc)
• Feedback from the scientific community is critical
◦ Your authors, editors, reviewers and the international community
88