从学术交流角度比较网络期刊与纸质期刊

通过对网络期刊与纸质期刊的比较,认为在诸多方面网络期刊对学术交流的影响要远甚于纸质期刊,并指出网络期刊是未来期刊的发展趋势,而网络期刊与纸质期刊并存是未来期刊的长期存在模式。     

我国纯网络学术期刊发展之思考--中欧科学期刊数据库(CESJ)对发展我国纯网络期刊的启迪

本文通过对中欧科学期刊数据库(CESJ)的介绍和分析,指出了重视纯网络学术期刊(以下简称网络期刊)对我国学术交流和期刊发展的意义,并探讨了在建设纯网络期刊时应采取的措施。     

利益相关者视角下预印本学术交流体系建设的困境与策略

[目的/意义]利益相关者理论为预印本学术交流体系中各利益主体的博弈提供较为成熟的研究框架,为突围其建设困境、提出针对性策略提供重要的考察视角。[方法/过程]通过文献调研及对ChinaXiv、arXiv、SSRN等9个国内外主流预印本平台的网络调研,梳理预印本学术交流体系中利益相关者构成及核心利益相关者诉求,剖析各利益主体围绕预印本发布前置、开放获取、质控弱化而形成的利益冲突、顾虑和矛盾,并阐释由此产生的预印本学术交流体系建设困境。[结果/结论 ]基于上述分析,从利益协调、利益维护和利益保障3个层面提出预印本学术交流体系建设策略,即促进预印本与期刊共生发展、完善预印本著作权保护机制、将预印本纳入科研管理体系,从而推动我国预印本学术交流体系健康发展。     

基于生态系统理论的预印本学术交流体系建设研究

建设以预印本为载体、预印本平台为媒介的预印本学术交流体系,可有效加速创新成果转化,为科技创新提供强大智力支撑和动力保障。文章运用生态系统理论,以文献调研结果、主流预印本平台网络调研数据、相关事件与案例分析等多重证据为支撑,阐明预印本学术交流体系多层次系统构成及互动机制,分析现存问题并提出优化策略。研究发现：科研人员对于预印本的保留观望、预印本平台和期刊出版社的分立以及预印本在主流学术体系中的游离,阻碍了预印本学术交流体系中微观、中观和宏观生态系统的互动共生。为破除上述障碍,应增强科研人员对预印本的认同,促进预印本平台与期刊出版社的协同,并推动预印本融入主流学术体系。     

Web上学术交流及其评价模式研究

本文对Web上的学术交流状况及其评价模式进行了比较全面和深入地研究。内容包括：网络期刊及电子期刊的评价，网上论文的引用分析，国内及国际大学、研究机构之间链接情况分析等。这对于分析研究者的思维方式和行为轨迹都是非常有意义的。同时，对于评价网络期刊、网上论文，以及大学的学术水平也是十分有帮助的。     

外文期刊全文数据库医学期刊调查研究

通过对高校图书馆现有的外文期刊全文数据库的分析与评价，进行了医学文献覆盖分析和质量调查，探讨了成本效益，指出了外文期刊全文数据库的特点及存在的问题。旨在为外文期刊全文数据库的选购提供指导，并提高其利用率。     

学术交流视阈下影响科研人员接受开放存取期刊出版的因素分析

科研人员是学术交流的主体,开放存取期刊(OAJ)必须有效承载学术交流的功能体系,才能满足科研人员对期刊出版的价值需求。文章在梳理学术交流理论的基础上,总结科技期刊在学术交流过程中的作用,从学术注册、认证、告知、存档、奖励、联结六个方面分析影响科研人员接受OAJ出版的因素,并提出相应的发展建议。     

纯电子期刊及大学图书馆读者对它的态度和利用

纯电子期刊也称网络期刊。它最大的特点是学术交流互动性加强和规模的扩大。调查表明 ,大部分用户对纯电子学术期刊缺乏认识和利用 ;93 77%的用户认为图书馆应当提供纯电子期刊。参考文献 6。     

网络学术期刊运作模式研究

在界定网络学术期刊的基础上，从国际化水平、稿件接收与评审、出版形式、读者服务、经费与版权问题、平行载体等方面探讨网络学术期刊的运作模式，指出其对构建新的学术交流体系和形成新的学术出版格局的意义。     

学术交流体系的变化及其对图书馆工作的影响

本文剖析了基于纸型载体的传统学术交流体系、基于网络载体的现代学术交流体系以及未来新的学术交流模式——开放存取的特点及对图书馆工作的影响,指出图书馆应该清醒地应对,以确保在学术交流体系中的地位。     

Web引文数量探析

通过对我国图书情报学科的 7种核心期刊近 5年来发表论文的参考文献中的网络引文的数量分析 ,本文揭示了网络信息资源对学术交流活动的影响和学者们利用网络信息资源的状况。并与国外的网络引文研究进行了比较。     

基于引文与网络链接的开放存取期刊学术影响力评价

以图书馆学情报学的97份开放存取期刊为样本,采用基于引文的评价方法和基于网络链接的评价方法对开放存取期刊的学术影响力进行评价。结果表明图书馆学情报学开放存取期刊已经成为该领域学术交流的重要组成部分,Journal of Medical Library Association、D-Lib Magazine、Information Research、Ariadne、Cybermetrics和First Monday是图书馆学情报学最重要的6份开放存取期刊,基于引文的评价方法和基于网络链接的评价方法之间存在着一定的相关性。     

A Methodology for Calculating Prestige Ranks of Academic Journals in Communication: A More Inclusive Alternative to Citation Metrics

The problem of how to rank academic journals in the communication field (human interaction, mass communication, speech, and rhetoric) is one of practical importance to scholars, university administrators, and librarians, yet there is no methodology that covers the field's journals comprehensively and objectively. This article reports a new ranking methodology based in empirical criteria. The new system relates independent measures of the prestige of the field's doctoral departments to information about where faculty members from those departments have published scholarly articles. This new approach identifies the field's most influential journals as those that more frequently publish the work of the field's top scholars and programs as perceived by their peers. This system was used to compute prestige weights (P-weights) for 65 communication journals. P-weights were found to be strongly correlated with ISI Web of Science journal impact factor scores and can be used to identify an overall prestige hierarchy for communication journals as well as prestige rankings by subject specialty.     

An interview with Sanford G. Thatcher,director, the Penn State Press

This interview was conducted at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries on April 30, 1992. Sanford G. Thatcher candidly comments on issues relating to university presses, the current state of the publishing world, and his views regarding scholarly communication and the future of scholarly journals.     

Reading behaviour and electronic journals

Studies from 1977 through 2001 demonstrate that scientists continue to read widely from scholarly journals. Reading of scholarly articles has increased to approximately 120–130 articles per person per year, with engineers reading fewer journal articles on the average and medical faculty reading more. A growing proportion of these readings come from e-prints and other separate copies. Most scientists in a discipline now use electronic journals at least part of the time, with considerable variations among disciplines. Evidence suggests that scientists are reading from a broader range of journals than in the past, influenced by timely electronic publishing and by growth in bibliographic searching and interpersonal communication as means of identifying and locating articles. Although the scholarly journals system has changed dramatically in the past few decades, it is evident that the value scientists place on the information found in scholarly journal articles, whether electronic or print, remains high.     

Scholarly Journals Should Be Treated as a Public Good

SUMMARY

The thesis that scholarly journals should be treated as public goods is based on five arguments. First, scholarly journal articles have many public good characteristics, and many of their private good characteristics are created by choice. Second, our current system undersupplies students with scholarly journals. Third, the supply chain for journals from publisher to user is burdened by many deadweight losses. Fourth, online publishing might reduce those deadweight losses enough to fund a system freely available to scholars. Finally, treating scholarly journals as public goods can meet the needs of all stakeholders. Explanations of the economic concepts of public good, deadweight loss, and Pareto optima are given to support the arguments.     

The Future of Academic Journals

Academic journals have traditionally provided disciplinary forums for scholarly communication (i.e., vetting, legitimating, and disseminating new ideas). Digitization is affecting scholarly communication and academic journals. Two effects are the bundling of journals by publishers and the growing variety of formats that open up new avenues of dissemination. Both effects have disrupted the traditional roles and relationships of scholars and their institutions, publishers and libraries in the processes of scholarly communication, including the significance of academic journals as a format.     

Exploring the scholarly communication styles of Arab social science and humanities scholars

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study of scholarly communication behaviour among Arab scholars. The main objective of this study is to determine how Egyptian and Saudi Arabian social sciences and humanities scholars engage in scholarly communication practices. The study used a mixed‐methods approach. A questionnaire was answered by a sample of 104 participants, followed by interviews with 36 participants to gain insight into the scholarly communication behaviour of the Arab scholars. The analysis demonstrated that participants use different styles of scholarly communication approaches. Most of the participants do use informal (social media) channels to communicate their research findings (particularly ResearchGate and Facebook), although priority is given to formal over informal publication in peer reviewed journals. Responses showed that the promotional systems of both countries dictate publication choices of scholars, reducing the amount of collaboration by ranking co‐publications lower than sole publications and favouring printed journals over online‐only journals.