Scholarly open access journals in medicine: A bibliometric study of DOAJ

This study aims to present a quantitative analysis of open access (OA) journals in the field of medicine indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The bibliographic data for this study was extracted from DOAJ and inserted into an Excel sheet for analysis. The retrieved data was analyzed by using different quantitative techniques to disclose the findings. The findings disclosed that 3627 OA journals related to the field of medicine are indexed in DOAJ, which represents a substantial increase from just 8 in 2002. Moreover, most of the medical journals (n = 1874 or 51.7%) do not charge any Author Processing Charges (APC) from the authors. The United Kingdom leads the world with 878 (24%) open access journal titles, whereas English is the top language of publication with 3149 (86.8%) OA journals in medicine. Elsevier is the leading publisher with 236 (6.5%) journal titles. A majority of the journals (n = 1595 or 44%) follow a double blind, peer-review process. About 2046 (56.4%) journals publish their contents under the Creative Commons (CC BY) licensing model to enable access and use of scholarly content for educational purposes.     

中文科技期刊如何申请加入DOAJ——以《口腔疾病防治》的实践为例

DOAJ( Directory of Open Acess Journals)是目前国际上最具影响力的开放获取期刊平台。DOAJ收录的范围很广泛,囊括所有学科的开放获取期刊,只要期刊有严格的质量控制体系,能够保证期刊内容的质量,即可申请收录;但我国被DOAJ收录的期刊仍不多。本文简单介绍DOAJ评选程序和申请过程,并结合《口腔疾病防治》被DOAJ收录的过程谈几点体会,希望能给编辑同人提供参考;同时提示申请加入DOAJ应提前做好准备、加强期刊官网建设、提高摘要质量、保证高质量的英文信息以及做好后续工作。     

Journals removed from DOAJ appearing within SCImago's ranks: A study of excluded journals

Researchers applauded Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)’s new selection criteria that removed many existing journals from its index because they are ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’. However, many of these journals have acceptable scholarly quality. The present study compares such removed journals to a trustworthy bibliometric database, SCImago Journal & Country Rank (the Scopus Database). It finds many overlaps. Some of the overlapping journals have a high score in the SCImago ranks. This paper calls for a more transparent process of journal reviews by DOAJ or even a re‐examination of the selection criteria and/or the evaluation process.     

开放存取期刊目录（DOAJ）介绍与分析

开放存取期刊分散保存．保存方式各异等特点为科研工作者有效获取所需信息带来了障碍。DOAJ作为全球最具影响力的开放存取期刊数据库之一,致力于提高开放获取期刊论文的透明度、可用性和利用率。文章详细介绍了DOAJ的历史、收录标准、信息组织方式、服务内容以及数据覆盖范围;同时,还将其与J-STAGE、SciELO、HighWire等几个具有代表性的期刊数据库在收录范围、学科分布、检索方式、服务内容等方面进行了比较;最后,提出了DOAJ对我国开展开放存取期刊整合工作的启示。该文为《数字图书馆论坛》2009年第11期本期话题“OpenAccess”的文章之一。     

Open access journal publishing in the Nordic countries

The number of open access (OA) journals and their share of all scholarly journals are usually estimated based on indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOAJ's coverage of OA journals from different regions of the world is, however, far from complete, particularly of journals publishing in languages other than English. Using alternative data sources for identification and manual verification, 437 scholarly OA journals published in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were identified, and some key characteristics were studied. Of these, only 184 were indexed in DOAJ. A vast majority of the journals was published by scholarly societies or universities. Social sciences and humanities dominated as topics, and few journals charge authors. National or university‐specific OJS portals have played a major role in enabling OA publishing. Around a third of the Nordic scholarly journals are currently OA.     

Predatory journals and their article publishing charges

This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not.     

关于DOAJ的概况、使用和影响分析

本文介绍了DOAJ(开放存取期刊目录)的概况,分析了它的使用特点,探讨了它产生的影响。     

中国大陆开放存取期刊实践现状研究

国际上开放存取期刊的发展取得了巨大成就,我国学者关注开放存取期刊的研究也超过5年,但我国大陆地区的开放存取期刊建设现状却很落后。据国际开放存取期刊收录目录DOAJ数据统计,到目前为止我国大陆地区仅注册33种。文章从开放存取期刊建设现状入手,分析其建设落后的原因并提出建设建议以加快我国大陆地区开放存取期刊的建设步伐。     

Elsevier收录材料科学类期刊可开放获取情况的调查与分析

对Elsevier旗下的SDOL数据库中的219种材料科学类期刊进行有关OA方面的研究,调查发现,在OSD和DOAJ这两大OA平台上,这219种期刊的可OA情况不容乐观。在SDOL数据库中,可OA的材料科学类期刊种数为数不少,但其中可OA期刊全文的并不多。将这219种期刊区分为完全OA期刊、部分OA期刊和完全非OA期刊,并对其质量进行了对比研究,认为Elsevier中材料科学类期刊的OA情况不是十分乐观,需业界的进一步推动。     

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.     

Bibliometrics Methods in Detecting Citations to Questionable Journals

In recent times, there has been a proliferation of questionable practices in research publishing, for example, via predatory journals, hijacked journals, plagiarism, tortured phrases and paper mills. This paper intends to analyse whether journals that had been removed from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) in 2018 due to suspected misconduct were cited within journals indexed in the Scopus database. Our analysis showed that Scopus contained over 15 thousand references to the removed journals identified. The majority of the publications citing these journals came from the area of Engineering. It is important to note that although we cannot assume that all the journals removed followed unethical practices, it is still essential that researchers are aware of the issues around citing journals that have been suspected of misconduct. We suggest that research libraries play a crucial role in training, advising and providing information to researchers about these ethical issues of publication malpractice and misconduct.     

Green and gold open access in India

This paper examines the characteristics of 462 open access (OA) journals being published in India under the green, gold and hybrid models. The sample of journals was selected from DOAJ, IndianJournal.com and Open J‐Gate. Journal characteristics were measured in terms of growth, subjects, publishers, and citations under each model. While characteristics such as growth, subject, and publisher have been identified by exploring the journal's website only, the citation count of these journals has been calculated by using Google Scholar and the Indian Citation Index. The gold road is now the most popular form of OA publishing in the subcontinent. There is a great variation in the size of OA journals and in their publishers. One publisher has more than 77 journals, but 264 publishers publish a single journal only. Overall, the OA journal landscape is greatly influenced by a few key publishers and journals. While 43% of journals charge publication fees and the fees vary from as low as US$10 to as high as US$400, the highest impact factor of the gold OA journals has been noted as 0.58. The data presented here suggest that publication fees are not a major barrier to authorship within the fields of computer science, pharmacy, and medicine.     

国际OA出版平台现状及“互联网+学术期刊”出版模式改革建议

以“互联网+”思维为基础,研究国际上几个代表性OA出版平台如DOAJ、BMC、PLoS的运营模式,分析国内外政府机构对OA出版的资金和政策支持,提出一套系统性的改革方案.认为基于互联网的数字出版模式渐成趋势,我国学术期刊应运用互联网思维改革办刊模式,开发自主云出版平台,创办一批国际领先水平的高质量OA英文期刊,在推动国内现有英文期刊精品化、国际化的同时,促进中文期刊可持续发展,从而整体提升我国学术期刊的综合影响力.     

国内外开放获取期刊现状调查研究

本文对DOAJ、HighWire出版社期刊开放仓储网络平台、日本科技信息网络电子平台、巴西科学在线图书馆、BioMed Central开放获取期刊网络出版平台等8个知名的期刊数据库/检索平台进行统计,将开放存取期刊按照出版社、ISSN、期刊名称、数据库检索平台、学科分类及出版国家信息以Excel列表。将统计所得的数据与艾利贝斯公司SFX知识库中的开放存取期刊列表去重合并,截止2009年3月,共统计开放存取期刊12531种,并以此数据为基础对国内外开放存取期刊现状进行研究。     

Challenge of Ukrainian academic librarians in an evolving scholarly publishing landscape

Faced with a prolonged economic crisis, Ukrainian research institutes are under pressure as a direct result of limited funding. This has also had a direct negative impact on the functionality of librarians who have seen increasing limitations to acquisitions. Despite economic difficulties, Ukrainian academic librarians are trying to offer their end-users specialized services that involve active librarian mediation in the preparation and dissemination of the results of these users' scientific work. One notable function is to offer aid to users on how to detect pseudo-scientific journals. In this paper, based on a survey of librarians from leading Ukrainian universities, we studied for the first time, the main information resources and tools used by Ukrainian experts to test the validity of scientific journals so that they may be recommended to library users as reliable channels for disseminating research results. These are tools and resources include Scopus, Web of Science, Beall's blacklists, the DOAJ, Think. Check. Submit., and the Norwegian Register. We describe the benefits and limitations that Ukrainian academic librarians may encounter when each of these resources is used. Modern reformation to Ukrainian science has opened up new opportunities for Ukrainian academic librarians. As a result, if they are able to successfully implement such services, they can regain a prominent place in the scientific life of institutions and on the global academic platform.     

Seats at the table: The network of the editorial boards in information and library science

The structural properties of the network generated by the editorial activities of the members of the boards of “Information Science & Library Science” journals are explored through network analysis techniques. The crossed presence of scholars on editorial boards, the phenomenon called interlocking editorship, is considered a proxy of the similarity of editorial policies. The evidences support the idea that this group of journals is better described as a set of only relatively connected subfields. In particular two main subfields are identified, consisting of research oriented journals devoted respectively to LIS and MIS. The links between these two subsets are weak. Around these two subsets there are a lot of (relatively) isolated professional journals or journals characterized more by their subject-matter content than by their focus on information flows. It is possible to suggest that this configuration of the network may be the consequence of the youthfulness of Information Science & Library Science, which has not permitted yet to reach a general consensus through scholars on research aims, methods and instruments.     

Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis

This article uses Google Scholar (GS) as a source of data to analyse Open Access (OA) levels across all countries and fields of research. All articles and reviews with a DOI and published in 2009 or 2014 and covered by the three main citation indexes in the Web of Science (2,269,022 documents) were selected for study. The links to freely available versions of these documents displayed in GS were collected. To differentiate between more reliable (sustainable and legal) forms of access and less reliable ones, the data extracted from GS was combined with information available in DOAJ, CrossRef, OpenDOAR, and ROAR. This allowed us to distinguish the percentage of documents in our sample that are made OA by the publisher (23.1%, including Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, and Bronze OA) from those available as Green OA (17.6%), and those available from other sources (40.6%, mainly due to ResearchGate). The data shows an overall free availability of 54.6%, with important differences at the country and subject category levels. The data extracted from GS yielded very similar results to those found by other studies that analysed similar samples of documents, but employed different methods to find evidence of OA, thus suggesting a relative consistency among methods.     

开放获取平台版权政策研究

出版商平台、集成平台是论文开放获取的重要途径。版权问题则是影响平台论文开放获取出版、集成或服 务的重要因素。首先研究出版商Springer、Wiley、SCIRP、PLOS及集成平台DOAJ、GoOA的版权政策,然后从版权许 可协议、让渡模式和利益相关方对集成平台和出版商平台的版权政策内容等方面进行比较分析,最后对国内开放获取 平台的版权政策的制定提出相应的建议。