Print versus electronic journals: a preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes

Purpose: To begin investigating the impact of electronic journals on research processes such as information seeking, the authors conducted a pilot journal-use study to test the hypothesis that patrons use print and electronic journals differently.Methodology: We placed fifteen high-use print titles also available in electronic format behind the circulation desk; patrons were asked to complete a survey upon requesting a journal. We also conducted a parallel survey of patrons using library computers. Both surveys asked patrons to identify themselves by user category and queried them about their journal use.Results: During the month-long study, patrons completed sixty-nine surveys of electronic and ninety surveys of print journal use. Results analysis indicated that fellows, students, and residents preferred electronic journals, and faculty preferred print journals. Patrons used print journals for reading articles and scanning contents; they employed electronic journals for printing articles and checking references. Users considered electronic journals easier to access and search than print journals; however, they reported that print journals had higher quality text and figures.Discussion/Conclusion: This study is an introductory step in examining how electronic journals affect research processes. Our data revealed that there were distinct preferences in format among categories. In addition to collection management implications for libraries, these data also have implications for publishers and educators; current electronic formats do not facilitate all types of uses and thus may be changing learning patterns as well.     

《复印报刊资料》图书馆学情报学期刊排名的实证研究

以《复印报刊资料》(下称资料)研究论文定量分析和2000—2003年图书馆学情报学期刊全文转载排名为基础，通过比较其综合排名与《中文核心期刊要目总览》、《中文社会科学引文索引》、《中国人文社会科学核心期刊要览》的差异和CNKI、《中文科技期刊引文数据库》收录期刊基金论文和被引频次验证排名合理性，结果表明《资料》期刊排名有一定的合理性，基金论文和被引频次是衡量期刊排名的客观指标。     

自然科学期刊自引对影响因子的"调控"

本文利用《中国科技期刊引证报告》,重新计算了其中几个学科的一些期刊除去自引后的影响因子,并对去除前和去除后的影响因子与期刊排名进行了对比,以考察期刊自引对影响因子和期刊排名的影响。调查发现目前个别期刊过度自引已经使期刊排名发生了失真。最后对如何遏制这种现象提出了一些建议。     

Composite journal rankings in library and information science: A factor analytic approach

This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact.     

基于HITS算法的期刊评价研究

构建了适用于期刊引用网络的HITS(hypertext in-duced topic search)算法,利用2006年的中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)分别计算所有及化学类统计源期刊的权威(authority)值与中心(hub)值,并与影响因子进行了对比研究,讨论了HITS算法用于期刊评价的优缺点以及适用范围。     

The development of an AI journal ranking based on the revealed preference approach

This study presents a ranking of 182 academic journals in the field of artificial intelligence. For this, the revealed preference approach, also referred to as a citation impact method, was utilized to collect data from Google Scholar. This list was developed based on three relatively novel indices: h-index, g-index, and hc-index. These indices correlated almost perfectly with one another (ranging from 0.97 to 0.99), and they correlated strongly with Thomson's Journal Impact Factors (ranging from 0.64 to 0.69). It was concluded that journal longevity (years in print) is an important but not the only factor affecting an outlet's ranking position. Inclusion in Thomson's Journal Citation Reports is a must for a journal to be identified as a leading A+ or A level outlet. However, coverage by Thomson does not guarantee a high citation impact of an outlet. The presented list may be utilized by scholars who want to demonstrate their research output, various academic committees, librarians and administrators who are not familiar with the AI research domain.     

Publication patterns of award-winning forest scientists and implications for the Australian ERA journal ranking

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the ‘Excellence in Research for Australia’ (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.     

十年来我国图书情报类核心期刊即年指标测度评价

以2000年至今多个版本的《中文核心期刊要目总览》为依据,结合《中文社会科学引文索引》（CSSCI）的相关数据,通过总被引速率、他刊引用速率和本学科引用速率3个分指标加权计算了14种图书情报类核心期刊的即年指标,并分析研究了这些期刊的学术价值和即时影响能力。     

Improving standards in the scientific biomedical community in Romania by using journal ranking to improve journal quality*

The paper articulates the problems of journal publication in a relatively small country such as Romania where locally (i.e. nationally) published journals include most of the national medical scientific output. The starting point was a study ordered by the Cluj University of Medicine and Pharmacy Scientific Council, for the purpose of obtaining an objectively ranked list of all current Romanian biomedical journals that could be used in the evaluation of the scientific activity of the university academic staff. Sixty‐five current biomedical journals were identified—of which more than half were new titles that had appeared over the past 5 years. None of these are included in the Science Citation Index or Journal Citation Reports (JCR). A set of criteria was used for ranking the journals: peer review, inclusion in international databases, publication time lag, language of articles and abstracts, journal specific index and domestic impact factor. The period covered, along with tools and formulas used are presented. The problems of Romanian biomedical journals as well as ways of improving publishing standards are discussed. Also emphasized is the necessity for increased awareness in the medical scholarly community and the role of the library in this respect.     

From a Trickle to a Flood: A Case Study of the Current Index to Legal Periodicals to Examine the Swell of American Law Journals Published in the Last Fifty Years

Using the lists of journals indexed in the Current Index to Legal Periodicals from the last fifty years, this article analyzes the increase in the number of general law reviews, specialized law journals, student-edited journals, and peer-edited and refereed law journals during the last half-century. Data from the Current Index to Legal Periodicals were combined with further data collected from HeinOnline, American Bar Association (ABA) statistics, and U.S. News & World Report statistics. Comparison of these data not only shows a massive increase in the number of law journal titles being published but also suggests a correlation between the number of law journals published by a law school and its student population, length of time that it has been accredited by the ABA, and its U.S. News & World Report ranking. This article also contains a list of all law journals currently indexed by the Current Index to Legal Periodicals including each journal's date of initial publication, in addition to a list of all print student-edited law journals published by ABA-accredited and provisionally accredited U.S. law schools.     

Publisher Package and Open Access Journals: Are Any of Them Predatory?

Similar to a study by Nelson and Huffman on the presence of predatory journals in aggregator databases, this study presents the results of a comparison between Jeffrey Beall’s List of Standalone Journals and a group of six commercial publisher and open access journal packages. A subject analysis of the predatory journals listed on Beall’s standalone journal list was also conducted along with an analysis of the trend in predatory publisher and journal growth. In the end, only a small number of predatory journals were found to exist within the publisher packages. The subject analysis of the journals on Beall’s standalone journal list revealed that most of the journals on his list were either multidisciplinary in nature or allied with science, medicine/health, and technology subjects. However, because the number of predatory journals discovered in the publisher packages was too small, a meaningful statement about the predominant subject areas of the predatory content found in the publisher packages could not be made. Finally, within the context of the publishing world at large, based on the historical development of predatory publishers and their journals, a dramatic increase in their growth is forecast. Because Beall’s lists of predatory publishers and standalone journals were often used by authors for guidance but are no longer available, several tools for evaluation of publisher and journal quality are summarized.     

自引对科技期刊影响因子作用的量化研究

以中国科技论文统计源数据库收录的70种中华医学会系列期刊为样本,通过计算得出这些期刊去除自引后的影响因子,并对去除前后期刊的影响因子及期刊排名进行比较.通过量化统计分析发现,自引对期刊的影响因子和排名影响显著(P＜0.01),进而影响对科技期刊的评价.     

基于图书馆集成管理系统的多版化期刊规范管理策略

通过综合分析多版化期刊的出版情况和图书馆集成管理系统的期刊管理环节,确定多版化期刊管理总的原则应是方便读者利用同时兼顾方便图书馆管理,提出共用同一ISSN的多版刊以发行代号来确定品种的方法,继而确定图书馆多版刊订购、签收、现刊排架、装订、验收、典藏、分类编目、过刊排架等各个环节的规范管理、操作原则。     

基于龙源期刊网的数字期刊阅读差异化分析

龙源期刊网发布的2011年度TOP100排行数据显示,不同类型的用户在进行数字期刊阅读时,个人用户与机构用户、国内用户与国外用户、国内不同地域用户间的阅读也都存在一定的差异性。     

论秦朝图书与档案的分野及其“以法治国”的行政取向

There are two major kinds of official collected books in Qin Dynasty. One is books which are to meet the needs of Doctor officials. The other is archives which are to meet the needs of law officials. And archives are the emphasis of official collected books in Qin Dynasty. Accordingly, archives are also the emphasis of official literature sorting in Qin Dynasty. It is different from the situation that books are the emphasis of official literature sorting in Han Dynasty. Administrative operation in Qin Dynasty is based on collection and utilization of official collected books. Therefore, Qin people’s different attitude towards books and archives can reflect the change of both Doctor officials’ and law officials’ political status. It can also reflect the administrative nature of Qin Dynasty, i.e. “rule country by law”.     

Citation impact analysis of top ranked computer science journals and their rankings

Citation based approaches, such as the impact factor and h-index, have been used to measure the influence or impact of journals for journal rankings. A survey of the related literature for different disciplines shows that the level of correlation between these citation based approaches is domain dependent. We analyze the correlation between the impact factors and h-indices of the top ranked computer science journals for five different subjects. Our results show that the correlation between these citation based approaches is very low. Since using a different approach can result in different journal rankings, we further combine the different results and then re-rank the journals using a combination method. These new ranking results can be used as a reference for researchers to choose their publication outlets.     

高校学术成果分级目录视角下图书情报类期刊分层研究

本文以高校实际使用的学术成果分级目录为视角,探讨中文图书情报类期刊的分层结构,为图情研究人员确定成果发表渠道、图书馆员调整期刊订购方案、高校管理人员制定学术成果分级决策提供参考;通过网络调研,汇总整理了国内63所有图书情报类硕士点(含专硕)高校发布的学术成果分级目录,提取了24种图书情报类期刊,统一编码、整理,对数据聚类产生期刊分层结果;发现图书情报类期刊的层次区分比较明显,处于上层的期刊多年来一直保持相对稳定,高校学术成果分级目录明显受CSSCI来源期刊遴选和北大核心期刊评选结果影响,表明核心期刊与非核心期刊的"桶"分类系统对高校学术成果分级政策起到了明显的导向作用。     

基于CSSCI的图情类期刊h指数评价研究

基于CSSCI的引文数据,以图情类73种期刊为例,将期刊h指数与影响因子、核心期刊排名等进行对比,证实期刊h指数在无干扰情况下是一种性能良好的期刊学术质量衡量指标,它还可以用于对评价机构期刊评价结果的再评价。同时指出它的学术衡量价值难以避免h指数精确注水行为的极大干扰。     

Citation-Based Impact Measures and the Bradfordian Selection Criteria

A comparison of a Bradford-ranked list of journals in the field of mathematics with a list of the same journals ranked by citation counts finds little correlation between the two. A previous study by Lamb shows a high correlation between a ranking based on citation frequency for these journals and a ranking based on the prestige of individual contributors. Lamb's study suggests that a selection policy based on choosing journals publishing the most papers on a topic will result in the acquisition of high quality papers. The results of this study cast doubt on Lamb's conclusions.     

Journal rankings by citation analysis in health sciences librarianship

The purpose of this study was to identify objectively a hierarchical ranking of journals for health sciences librarians with faculty status. Such a guideline can indicate a journal's value for promotion and tenure consideration. Lists of recent research articles (1982-1986) in health sciences librarianship, and articles written by health sciences librarians, were compiled by searching Social SCISEARCH and MEDLINE. The journals publishing those articles are presented. Results show BMLA as the most prominent journal in the field. Therefore, citations from articles in BMLA from 1982 to 1986 were chosen as a sample for citation analysis. Citation analysis was employed to identify the most frequently cited journals. Some characteristics of the citations in BMLA are also discussed. The ranking of journals based on citation frequency, as a result, was identified.