A label for peer‐reviewed books? Some critical reflections

The recently established quality label for peer‐reviewed publications in Flanders has lately aroused some interest in the international literature on scholarly communication. Although the so‐called GPRC‐label is in principle a welcome initiative, its implementation, from 2010 onwards, has already engendered several unexpected side‐effects. This article discusses these pitfalls and traces their origin in the Flemish performance‐based research funding system. It also points to a number of hard‐to‐solve practical problems if the quality label were to be implemented in an international context. In this way, it aims to temper the enthusiasm with which the label has been welcomed, both in Flanders and internationally.     

How are electronic journals and CD-ROMs being accepted in Japan?

The market for electronic journals and CD-ROMs in Japan is analysed. The electronic journal is changing the roles of the main players: publishers, libraries, and agents. Publishers go directly to libraries, while agents are trying to survive as coordinators for libraries to finalize licence agreements. CD-ROMs are selling as an alternative to books although not all the advantages of their digital format are yet being fully exploited. The time, however, is close when CD-ROMs will generate revenue by usage through a campus local area network.     

Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?

Several authors have proposed that a large number of unusual combinations of cited references in a paper point to its high creative potential (or novelty). However, it is still not clear whether the number of unusual combinations can really measure the creative potential of papers. The current study addresses this question on the basis of several case studies from the field of scientometrics. We identified some landmark papers in this field. Study subjects were the corresponding authors of these papers. We asked them where the ideas for the papers came from and which role the cited publications played. The results revealed that the creative ideas might not necessarily have been inspired by past publications. The literature seems to be important for the contextualization of the idea in the field of scientometrics. Instead, we found that creative ideas are the result of finding solutions to practical problems, result from discussions with colleagues, and profit from interdisciplinary exchange. The roots of the studied landmark papers are discussed in detail.     

Is it worth establishing institutional repositories? The strategies for open access to Spanish peer‐reviewed articles

We examine open access to the Spanish scientific literature via investigation of a sample of peer‐reviewed articles in seven subject categories. Of the 28,259 papers published in 2000, 26.89% were freely accessible, with the share varying among disciplines. Articles in the social and behavioral sciences were the most widely available for free. This disciplinary divide applies also to the strategies used to offer open access to documents. In clinical medicine, life sciences, arts and humanities and social sciences open access was mainly based on the publishers' side, while subject‐based repositories were dominant in physical, chemical and earth sciences and deposit on homepages was the preferred strategy in engineering, computing and technology. Institutional and general repositories seem to play a minor role in providing free access to the Spanish peer‐reviewed literature. Papers published in commercial journals are less accessible than those that appear in non‐commercial journals, and we found overlaps in almost 20% of papers deposited. The fastest way to gain open access is to deposit in subject‐based repositories and the longest delays are related to deposits in homepages and especially to institutional repositories. Open access to Spanish peer‐reviewed articles is dominated by the passive mechanism of the “gold route” and the editorial strategy with self‐archiving practices in the minority and directed mainly towards subject‐based repositories and homepage posting of the papers. The results of this study could serve as a reference point for further study on the evolution of open access in Spain.     

Who are the self‐publishers?

This paper describes new research into the motivations, demographics, processes, and outcomes of self‐publishing authors of books. The findings challenge traditionally held notions about self‐publishing being a process undertaken by the untalented, as a last resort. The cohort studied emerges as highly educated, often well informed about the publishing process, and generally very positive about the self‐publishing experience. As the number of people self‐publishing continues to grow and associated technology progresses, a number of fundamental implications for stakeholders in both the non‐fiction and fiction publishing business pipelines are noted. With disintermediation now widespread, there will be increased pressure on the traditional industry to adapt its business models and focus on adding value. At the same time, opportunities in publishing services can be identified and the role of the author is significantly enhanced. Parallels between the cultures and processes of academic and self‐publishing authors are discussed; these will set the scene for future research.     

How accurate are gender detection tools in predicting the gender for Chinese names? A study with 20,000 given names in Pinyin format

Objective:We recently showed that the gender detection tools NamSor, Gender API, and Wiki-Gendersort accurately predicted the gender of individuals with Western given names. Here, we aimed to evaluate the performance of these tools with Chinese given names in Pinyin format.Methods:We constructed two datasets for the purpose of the study. File #1 was created by randomly drawing 20,000 names from a gender-labeled database of 52,414 Chinese given names in Pinyin format. File #2, which contained 9,077 names, was created by removing from File #1 all unisex names that we were able to identify (i.e., those that were listed in the database as both male and female names). We recorded for both files the number of correct classifications (correct gender assigned to a name), misclassifications (wrong gender assigned to a name), and nonclassifications (no gender assigned). We then calculated the proportion of misclassifications and nonclassifications (errorCoded).Results:For File #1, errorCoded was 53% for NamSor, 65% for Gender API, and 90% for Wiki-Gendersort. For File #2, errorCoded was 43% for NamSor, 66% for Gender API, and 94% for Wiki-Gendersort.Conclusion:We found that all three gender detection tools inaccurately predicted the gender of individuals with Chinese given names in Pinyin format and therefore should not be used in this population.     

Is Google Scholar useful for the evaluation of non‐English scientific journals? The case of Chinese journals

This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals.     

Republication of conference papers in journals?

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one‐quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self‐plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results.     

Small scholar‐led scholarly journals: Can they survive and thrive in an open access future?

This article presents early results of a research project designed to further our understanding of how to ensure that small scholar‐led journals can survive and thrive in a global open access knowledge commons. This phase of the research focuses on generation of ideas through interviews and focus groups with 15 participants involved in producing small scholar‐led journals that either are or would like to become open access. Although a couple of journals reported that they could survive in an open access future based on existing resources, most were concerned about survival and none expressed confidence that they could thrive in an open‐access future. These journals are far more diverse than one might imagine. Comparing the costs of article production from one journal with another might not make sense. A number of avenues for further research are discussed.     

How to control conflict of interest in medical journals＇ pubUshing

针对医学期刊中利益冲突产生的原因及表现形式,提出了在论文出版流程的各个环节控制或消减利益冲突影响的措施和建议。认为医学期刊从业者需要潜心研究控制利益冲突的相关措施,从而保证医学期刊科学信息的真实性,维护医学期刊自身的公信力和品牌信誉,维护科学出版的公正性和客观性。     

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.     

Evidence-based librarianship (EBL) in e-resources acquisition: How concerned are librarians?

E-resources acquisition is a prevalent topic in the global economic crisis. To ensure the continuity of e-resources, librarians venture into various approaches, including evidence-based librarianship (EBL). This study reports librarians' concerns about EBL implementation during the acquisition process. The Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) tools, including the modified Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) and the Quick Scoring Device, were used to measure the individual librarian stages of concern. The results indicate that the scores for librarians' concerns are at the peak in stage 2 (Self), followed by stage 5 (Collaboration), stage 3 (Management), stage 1 (Informational), and stage 6 (Refocusing), with the lowest score at stage 0 (Unconcern). The findings demonstrate that librarians are more concerned about how EBL implementation could affect themselves (as in Stage 2 (Self)) in performing their tasks as librarians. The results are significant in providing perspectives on individual librarians' sensitivity to EBL implementation as an innovation in their work processes.     

Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?

This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated where predatory/fake journals (PFJs) are founded, which countries’ researchers publish more frequently in PFJs, the identity of the editors of PFJs, why researchers publish in PFJs, and what factors encourage such publications. A survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews were used to collect data. The results indicate that the majority of PFJs are located in developing countries; 119 journals provided incorrect postal addresses; the greatest number of researchers who published in PFJs are from India, Nigeria, and Turkey, suggesting that most of the publications in PFJs are submitted by researchers in developing countries; the interviewed Turkish researchers submitted their articles to PFJs in pursuit of rapid academic promotion; the incentive allowance system encourages researchers to publish in PFJs; and the well-known “publish-or-perish” pressure and unawareness are other potential factors that drive participants to submit their papers to PFJs.     

Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches

Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2011) proposed methods based on Web of Science data to identify field-specific excellence in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a number of highly cited papers that is statistically significantly higher than can be expected for these cities. Using papers published between 1989 and 2009 in information science improvements to the methods of Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2011) are presented and an alternative mapping approach based on the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is introduced here. The I3 indicator was developed by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011b).     

How prevalent are plagiarized submissions? Global survey of editors

Most analyses of plagiarism focus on published content and do not report on the prevalence of plagiarism in submitted articles. Fears over large‐scale plagiarism, particularly in articles submitted by authors for whom English is a second language, have only been investigated in small publishing communities or using duplication‐checking analysis, which does not separate legitimate from unacceptable duplication. This research surveyed journal editors from around the world to ascertain recent (past year) experiences of plagiarized and/or duplicated submissions. We then compared their experiences to their assumptions about global levels of plagiarism. The survey received 372 responses, including 119 from Asian editors, 112 from European editors, and 57 from editors in North America. The respondents estimated that c.15% of all submissions contained plagiarized or duplicated content, although their own experiences were in the range of 2–5% of submissions. Of the respondents, 42% reported no incidence of plagiarized or duplicated submissions in the past year. Asian editors experienced the highest levels of plagiarized/duplicated content, although most of the problem articles were resolved, indicating that most of the identified duplication constituted relatively minor problems, rather than fraudulent plagiarism.