The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism

Who knows what a mask is … and what it does? A bibliometric and textometric study of more than a century of scientific publications on sanitary masks (1892-2023)

In this article, the authors identify the disciplines that have taken an interest in masks over time, as well as how, in what proportions, according to what concerns, with what developments, and possibly with what effects. They ask whether the multiplicity of disciplinary perspectives is likely to lead to the emergence and sharing of new concerns, especially environmental ones, or whether the balkanization and juxtaposition of disciplines may leave certain aspects in the dark and thus contribute to the persistent production of a certain kind of ignorance. Based on a bibliometric and textometric study of more than 6000 scientific articles (1892-2023), they show the extent to which the Covid-19 pandemic has turned the study of masks upside down. It has encouraged the development of multidisciplinary and even interdisciplinary approaches, even if the legacy of almost exclusively medical sciences and engineering tends to severely limit hybridizations. The study highlights the possible emergence of a new movement of 'scientization of the popular', which leads scientists to incorporate the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens into the conduct of their research, thus challenging and reversing the well-known process of popularizing science.

Comparison of journal and top publisher self-citation rates in COVID-19 research

INTRODUCTION

Journal self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of a journal and to some metrics like the impact factor. However, little is known about the extent of journal self-citations in COVID-19 research. This study aimed to determine the journal self-citations in COVID-19 research and to compare them according to the type of publication and publisher.

METHODS

Data in COVID-19 research extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection 2020-2023 was collected and further analyzed with InCites. The journals with the highest self-citation rates and self-citation per publication were identified. Statistical comparisons were made according to the type of publication and publishers, as well as with other major infectious diseases.

RESULTS

The median self-citation rate was 4.0% (IQR 0-11.7%), and the median journal self-citation rate was 5.9% (IQR 0-12.5%). 1,859 journals (13% of total coverage) had self-citation rates at or above 20%, meaning that more than one in five references are journal self-citations. There was a positive and statistically significant correlation of self-citations with the other indicators, including number of publications, citations, and self-citations per publication (p<0.001). Editorial materials contributed more to journal SC with a median self-citation rate of 5%, which was statistically higher than other documents such as articles, letters or reviews (p<0.001). Among the top twelve publishers, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute had a median self-citation rate of 8.33% and was statistically higher than the rest (p<0.001). Self-citation rates for COVID-19 were lower than tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, but self-citations per publication of these diseases were statistically lower than those for COVID-19 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Some journals from the Web of Science Core Collection displayed exorbitant journal self-citation patterns during the period 2020-2023. Approximately, one in every five paper references in COVID-19 is a journal self-citation. Types of publication such as editorials engage in this practice more frequently than others, suggesting that in COVID-19 research, self-citing non-citable items could potentially contribute to inflate journal impact factors during the pandemic.

Center of mass change in the biomechanics citation network

This study examined the hypothesis that the network of citation in biomechanics journals would change over the last decade and specifically the centrality of the journal Sports Biomechanics. Top 20 cited biomechanics journals identified using the 'Journal Citation Relationships' feature from Journal Citation Reports were extracted for 12 'seed' biomechanics journals in 2011, 2016, and 2021. From 2011 till 2021 the total number of top cited biomechanics journals in Journal Citation Reports decreased (17%) from 90 to 74, while the citations to these journals nearly increased 5-fold (8,051 to 39,574). Top Journal Citation Reports cited biomechanics journals changed over time, indicating variability in the centrality of many journals in the biomechanics citation network based on this prestigious database. Over time there were decreasing citation of medical journals, as well as increasing citation of open access mega journals and the journal Sports Biomechanics. Citation network analysis provides insight into the changing structure of knowledge creation in biomechanics, with recent trends towards applied research particularly on wearable sensors published in mega journals.

Bibliometric analysis of the Spanish scientific production in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology (2014-2021)

INTRODUCTION

The profound impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, together with other factors such as globalisation and climate change, has emphasised the growing relevance of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology.

METHODS

The Spanish scientific production in both categories of the Web of Science databases over the period 2014-2021 has been analysed.

RESULTS

8037 documents have been identified in Infectious Diseases and 12008 documents in Microbiology (6th most productive country worldwide in both cases, with growth rates of 41% and 46.2%, respectively). Both areas present a high degree of international collaboration (45-48% of the documents) and between 45-66% of the documents have been published in journals of excellence (first quartile) according to the rankings of the Journal Citation Reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Spain is in a prominent position worldwide in both areas, with an outstanding scientific production in journals of high visibility and impact.

Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study of Hungary

As the open access movement has gained widespread popularity in the scientific community, academic publishers have gradually adapted to the new environment. The pioneer open access journals have turned themselves into megajournals, and the subscription-based publishers have established open access branches and have turned subscription-based journals into hybrid ones. Maybe the most dramatic outcome of the open access boom is the market entry of such fast-growing open access publishers as Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). By 2021, in terms of the number of papers published, MDPI has become one of the largest academic publishers worldwide. However, the publisher’s market shares across countries and regions show an uneven pattern. Whereas in such scientific powers as the United States and China, MDPI has remained a relatively small-scale player, it has gained a high market share in Europe, particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In 2021, 28 percent of the SCI/SSCI papers authored/co-authored by researchers from CEE countries were published in MDPI journals, a share that was as high as the combined share of papers published by Elsevier and Springer Nature, the two largest academic publishers in the world. This paper seeks to find an explanation for the extensively growing share of MDPI in the publication outputs of CEE countries by choosing Hungary as a case study. To do this, by employing data analysis, some unique features of MDPI will be revealed. Then, we will present the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among Hungary-based researchers regarding MDPI and the factors that motivated them to publish in MDPI journals. Our results show that researchers generally consider MDPI journals’ sufficiently prestigious, emphasizing the importance of the inclusion of MDPI journals in Scopus and Web of Science databases and their high ranks and impacts. However, most researchers posit that the quick turnaround time that MDPI journals offer is the top driver of publishing in such journals.

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science

With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.

The Rise of the Guest Editor—Discontinuities of Editorship in Scholarly Publishing

Scholarly publishing lives on traditioned terminology that gives meaning to subjects such as authors, inhouse editors and external guest editors, artifacts such as articles, journals, special issues, and collected editions, or practices of acquisition, selection, and review. These subjects, artifacts, and practices ground the constitution of scholarly discourse. And yet, the meaning ascribed to each of these terms shifts, blurs, or is disguised as publishing culture shifts, which becomes manifest in new digital publishing technology, new forms of publishing management, and new forms of scholarly knowledge production. As a result, we may come to over- or underestimate changes in scholarly communication based on traditioned but shifting terminology. In this article, we discuss instances of scholarly publishing whose meaning shifted. We showcase the cultural shift that becomes manifest in the new, prolific guest editor. Though the term suggests an established subject, this editorial role crystallizes a new cultural setting of loosened discourse communities and temporal structures, a blurring of publishing genres and, ultimately, the foundations of academic knowledge production.

Open Access Publications with Article Processing Charge (APC) Payment: a Brazilian Scenario Analysis

The expansion of open access publications has been correlated with specific government policies in many countries. The evolution in these cases is understandable within the framework of funding regulations. However, this is not the case for Brazil, where no regulation is currently in place. The unusually high percentage of open access publications in the Brazilian scientific community is analyzed here toward understanding which factors influence this growth and how similar effects may also impact other countries, particularly developing nations. We found that from 2012 to 2019 the Brazilian scientific community drifted to international open access journals. This transition is discussed in the framework of mega journals.

Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

Contributorship statements were introduced by scholarly journals in the late 1990s to provide more details on the specific contributions made by authors to research papers. After more than a decade of idiosyncratic taxonomies by journals, a partnership between medical journals and standards organizations has led to the establishment, in 2015, of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), which provides a standardized set of 14 research contributions. Using the data from Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals over the 2017–2018 period (N = 30,054 papers), this paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions. It also assesses whether some contributions are more likely to be performed in conjunction with others and examines how the new taxonomy provides greater insight into the gendered nature of labor division. The paper concludes with a discussion of results with respect to current issues in research evaluation, science policy, and responsible research practices.