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。     

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。     

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.     

Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing

Very little research has been conducted to investigate new journal impact factors that have emerged to rank open access (OA) journals as an alternative to the Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal & Country Rank. The few existing studies have found these metrics misleading. Our study examined the criteria used by these impact factors to see whether they are fake metrics or represent early efforts for developing new standards to advance journal evaluations. We analysed as many available alternative impact factors as possible and discovered that their methodologies were either unreproducible or based on unreliable or opaque criteria. We hope this study will help shed light on the ecosystem of OA publishing and identify both possibly unprofessional behaviours and potential improvements in bibliometric algorithms.     

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.     

Growth and quality of Chinese journals from 1949 to 2013

In recent years, substantial investments in science and technology have led to an increase in Chinese academic journals. Previous investigations have used international indexes to track growth, but this article uses the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database along with Web of Science and SCImago to avoid inclusion bias and analyse the complete landscape of Chinese academic journals (in all disciplines). This article investigated the rate of growth of new journals, the regional distribution of journals, and the quality of the journals (calculated domestically and internationally). Our results indicate that: (1) the average annual growth rate of Chinese academic journals has been 2.74%, but this might probably be affected by different periods of China’s economic and cultural development; (2) the number of journals published in Eastern China is higher than that in Central and Western China; (3) journal quality has improved somewhat in recent years; (4) 84.48% of journals demonstrate domestic impact factors below 1; and (5) China performs better than other developing countries when using the impact factor but equals them when using the SCImago Journal and Country Rank indicator.     

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。     

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.     

A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator

A size-independent indicator of journals’ scientific prestige, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, is proposed that ranks scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality. It is designed for use with complex and heterogeneous citation networks such as Scopus. Its computation method is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2007 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), both generally and within specific scientific areas. Both the SJR indicator and the JIF distributions were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. While the two metrics were strongly correlated, there were also major changes in rank. In addition, two general characteristics were observed. On the one hand, journals’ scientific influence or prestige as computed by the SJR indicator tended to be concentrated in fewer journals than the quantity of citation measured by JIF(3y). And on the other, the distance between the top-ranked journals and the rest tended to be greater in the SJR ranking than in that of the JIF(3y), while the separation between the middle and lower ranked journals tended to be smaller.     

Cabells’ Journal Whitelist and Blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations

Key points

• Cabells’ Whitelist of ca. 11,000 quality journals has recently been joined by a Blacklist of over 8,300 journals that fail basic quality criteria.
• Cabells’ Journal Blacklist is the only searchable database of deceptive and fraudulent journals with comprehensive reports detailing violations.
• Key components for establishing the Blacklist were objectivity and transparency with respect to the evaluation process and selection criteria, and unbiased evaluations.
• The Blacklist evaluation criteria were tested to ensure accurate judgement and are continually evolving to maintain suitability.
• Over 800 journals are added to the Blacklist each month.

     

Altmetrics of South African Journals: Implications for Scholarly Impact of South African Research

The purpose of the study was to investigate and compare the social media (SM) impact of 273 South Africa Post-Secondary Education accredited journals, which are recognised by the Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa for purposes of financial support. We used multiple sources to extract data for the study, namely, Altmetric.com, Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (through SCImago) and the Thomson Reuters (TR) Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Data was analysed to determine South African journals’ presence in and impact on SM as well as to contrast SM visibility and impact with the citation impact in GS, JCR and Scopus. The Spearman correlation test was performed to compare the impact of the journals on SM and other sources. The results reveal that 2923 articles published in 122 of the 273 South African (SA) journals have received at least one mention in SM; the most commonly used SM platforms were Twitter and Facebook; the journals indexed in the TR’s citation indexes and Scopus performed much better, in terms of their average altmetrics, than non-TR and non-Scopus indexed journals; and there were weak to moderate relationships among different types of altmetrics and citation-based measures, thereby implying different kinds of journal impacts on SM when compared to the scholarly impact reflected in citation databases. In conclusion, South African journals’ impact on SM, just as is the case with countries with similar economies, is minimal but has shown signs of growth.     

Information Sources and Indicators for the Assessment of Journal Reputation and Impact

This guide describes several information sources that can be used to assist faculty interested in quantitative and qualitative assessments of journal reputation and scholarly impact: Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, Google Scholar Metrics, Elsevier Journal Metrics, Excellence in Research for Australia, Cabell’s International, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Beall’s List. It also introduces the indicators most often used to represent citation impact: impact factor, article influence score, eigenfactor, h5-index, source normalized impact per paper, impact per publication, and SCImago journal rank. Methods of assessing the influence of individual articles are also presented, along with strategies for the identification of predatory or low-quality journals.     

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。     

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.     

Measuring the Quality of Contributions of Saudi Authors to LIS Journals Using Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM)

This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals.