scholarly journals The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva ◽  
Aceil Al-Khatib
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
A Site ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Without peer reviewers, the entire scholarly publishing system as we currently know it would collapse. However, as it currently stands, publishing is an extremely exploitative system, relative to other business models, in which trained and specialized labor is exploited, in the form of editors and peer reviewers, primarily by for-profit publishers, in return for a pat on the back, and a public nod of thanks. This is the “standardized” and “accepted” form for deriving mainstream peer reviewed literature. However, except for open peer review, where reports are open and identities are known, traditional peer review is closed, and the content of peer reports is known only to the authors and editors involved. Publons launched in 2012 as a platform that would offer recognition to peer reviewers for their work. In 2016, Publons rewarded the most productive reviewers with a “Sentinels of Science” award, accompanied by a dismal monetary reward (38 US cents/review) for their efforts. A site aimed at registering pre- and post-publication peer efforts, Publons was perceived as a positive step towards a more transparent peer review system. However, the continued presence of fake peer reviews and a spike in retractions, even among publishers that were Publons sponsors, suggests that perhaps peers may be exploiting Publons to get recognition for superficial or poor peer review. Since all reviews are not public, their content and quality cannot be verified. On 1 June 2017, ClarivateTM Analytics, which owns the journal impact factor—most likely the most gamed non-academic factor in academic publishing—which is a measure of the number of citations of papers in journals, many of which are published by the for-profit publishers—including Publons sponsors—that “employ” free peer reviewers to quality check the literature they then sell for profit, purchased Publons. Touting the purchase as a way to increase transparency, and stamp out fake peer review, some who had supported Publons felt betrayed, even cancelling their Publons accounts immediately when learning of this purchase. Their concerns included the possible “gaming” of peer review as had taken place with the journal impact factor. This commentary examines possible positive and negative aspects of this business transaction, and what it might mean to academics and publishers.

scholarly journals “Worth(less) papers” – are journal impact factor and number of citations suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists?

2018 ◽  
Vol XVI (2) ◽  
pp. 369-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Racz ◽  
Suzana Marković
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Digital Repository ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
On Line ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

scholarly journals The pricing of open access journals: Diverse niches and sources of value in academic publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Siler ◽  
Koen Frenken
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Numerous Publication ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Geographic Regions ◽  
Journal Impact

Open access (OA) publishing has created new academic and economic niches in contemporary science. OA journals offer numerous publication outlets with varying editorial philosophies and business models. This article analyzes the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ( n = 12,127) to identify characteristics of OA academic journals related to the adoption of article processing charge (APC)-based business models, as well as the price points of journals that charge APCs. Journal impact factor (JIF), language, publisher mission, DOAJ Seal, economic and geographic regions of publishers, peer review duration, and journal discipline are all significantly related to the adoption and pricing of journal APCs. Even after accounting for other journal characteristics (prestige, discipline, publisher country), journals published by for-profit publishers charge the highest APCs. Journals with status endowments (JIF, DOAJ Seal) and articles written in English, published in wealthier regions, and in medical or science-based disciplines are also relatively costlier. The OA publishing market reveals insights into forces that create economic and academic value in contemporary science. Political and institutional inequalities manifest in the varying niches occupied by different OA journals and publishers.

Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

Abstract Background Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal. Objectives We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles. Methods We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted. Results Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

scholarly journals In praise of the impact factor

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Antonakis ◽  
Nicolas Bastardoz ◽  
Philippe Jacquart
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Good Proxy ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Quality

The impact factor has been criticized on several fronts, including that the distribution of citations to journal articles is heavily skewed. We nuance these critiques and show that the number of citations an article receives is significantly predicted by journal impact factor. Thus, impact factor can be used as a reasonably good proxy of article quality.

scholarly journals Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 366
Author(s):  
Ludo Waltman ◽  
Vincent A. Traag
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Accurate Indicator

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

scholarly journals Scholarly Activity of Radiation Oncologists in High-Income Developing Countries: Saudi Arabia as an Example

2021 ◽  
pp. 378-383
Author(s):  
Majed A. Alghamdi ◽  
Suliman M. Alghamdi ◽  
Yasir A. Bahadur ◽  
Mushabbab A. Asiri ◽  
Hussain A. AlHussain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Second Period ◽  
Journal Impact

PURPOSE To examine the trends and quality metrics of publications by radiation oncologists in Saudi Arabia. METHODS PubMed was searched using names of all Saudi radiation oncologists to retrieve published articles between January 2010 and December 2019. International collaboration, journal impact factor and country of origin, and number of citations were collected. Each article was assessed for epidemiologic type and independently assigned a level of evidence (LOE) by two authors. The trend in publications was examined and compared in the first and second 5-year periods (2010-2014 and 2015-2019) using relevant parameters. RESULTS A total of 186 publications were found and included. The most common type of research was cohort studies followed by case reports and case series in 24%, 14%, and 13% of all publications, respectively. Dosimetry, clinical, and preclinical studies formed 7%, 8.6%, and 7.5% of the total publications, respectively. The LOE was I, II, III, IV, and not applicable in 8.6%, 22%, 25.8%, 29%, and 14.5% of the included publications, respectively. Comparing the first and second 5-year periods, there was an increase in international collaboration ( P < .001) in the second period. The number of citations ( P < .001) and journal impact factor ( P = .028) were lower in the second period. LOE and publications in international journals were not statistically different between the two periods. CONCLUSION Although radiation oncology research activity in Saudi Arabia has gained momentum in terms of volume and international collaboration over time, the LOE has not improved. This calls for a national effort to make the contribution to the literature a priority, allocate adequate resources, and apply appropriate measures to enhance research productivity and quality.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? – An overview of methodological reviews (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo Sr ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin Sr ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento Sr ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez Sr ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa Sr
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

BACKGROUND The most common way to assess the impact of an article is based upon the number of citations. However, the number of citations do not precisely reflect if the message of the paper is reaching a wider audience. Currently, social media has been used to disseminate contents of scientific articles. In order to measure this type of impact a new tool named Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through the media online. OBJECTIVE This overview of methodological reviews aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and the publishing articles variables with Altmetric scores. METHODS Search strategies on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library including publications since the inception until July 2018 were conducted. We extracted data related to the publishing trial and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. RESULTS A total of 11 studies were considered eligible. These studies summarized a total of 565,352 articles. The variables citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts (i.e. considered as the sum of HTML views and PDF downloads), papers published as open access and press release generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from weak to moderate. CONCLUSIONS Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common associators of high Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals and the use of press releases are also likely to influence online media attention. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals Lifting the lid on impact and peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 239821282110065
Author(s):  
Joseph Clift ◽  
Anne Cooke ◽  
Anthony R. Isles ◽  
Jeffrey W. Dalley ◽  
Richard N. Henson
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Neuroscience Community

Brain and Neuroscience Advances has grown in tandem with the British Neuroscience Association’s campaign to build Credibility in Neuroscience, which encourages actions and initiatives aimed at improving reproducibility, reliability and openness. This commitment to credibility impacts not only what the Journal publishes, but also how it operates. With that in mind, the Editorial Board sought the views of the neuroscience community on the peer review process, and on how they should respond to the Journal Impact Factor that will be assigned to Brain and Neuroscience Advances. In this editorial, we present the results of a survey of neuroscience researchers conducted in the autumn of 2020 and discuss the broader implications of our findings for the Journal and the neuroscience community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document