How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences

Publishing in English or Chinese: a qualitative analysis of Chinese researchers' academic language choice

Non-native language scholars often struggle to choose between English and their native language in scholarly publishing. This study aims to identify the mechanism by which journal attributes influence language choice by investigating the perspectives of 18 Chinese scholars through semi-structured interviews. Drawing on grounded theory, this study develops a model for how journal attributes influence researchers' language preferences. We find that journal attributes influence researchers' perceived value which, in turn, affects their particular language choice, with contextual factors playing a moderating role. By examining the motivations underlying Chinese scholars' language choice, this study provides a critical understanding of the factors shaping their decision-making processes. These findings have significant implications for Chinese scholars, policymakers, and journal operators, shedding light on the issue of discrimination in academic publishing. Addressing these concerns is crucial for fostering a fair and inclusive academic environment.

An open automation system for predatory journal detection

The growing number of online open-access journals promotes academic exchanges, but the prevalence of predatory journals is undermining the scholarly reporting process. Data collection, feature extraction, and model prediction are common steps in tools designed to distinguish between legitimate and predatory academic journals and publisher websites. The authors include them in their proposed academic journal predatory checking (AJPC) system based on machine learning methods. The AJPC data collection process extracts 833 blacklists and 1213 whitelists information from websites to be used for identifying words and phrases that might indicate the presence of predatory journals. Feature extraction is used to identify words and terms that help detect predatory websites, and the system's prediction stage uses eight classification algorithms to distinguish between potentially predatory and legitimate journals. We found that enhancing the classification efficiency of the bag of words model and TF-IDF algorithm with diff scores (a measure of differences in specific word frequencies between journals) can assist in identifying predatory journal feature words. Results from performance tests suggest that our system works as well as or better than those currently being used to identify suspect publishers and publications. The open system only provides reference results rather than absolute opinions and accepts user inquiries and feedback to update the system and optimize performance.

Factors influencing the citation behavior of Pakistani novice LIS researchers

This study aims to understand the citation behavior of LIS research graduates in terms of their citation practices, citation motivation with the perceived quality and trustworthiness of cited sources. The paper endeavors to gain an insight into their citation behavior to gender, age, qualification, and publications. An online questionnaire survey was conducted in July 2020 to collect data from researchers who have been studying or completed their research degrees from the Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore-Pakistan. Data showed that almost half of the researchers published articles in journals. They preferred to cite: the most recent sources, articles written by reputable authors, highly cited sources, and articles which contain high-quality references. Researchers were motivated to cite open access and impact factor journals. There was no significant relationship between gender and any of the variables of citation behavior. However, only qualification affected the citation motivation of novice researchers. The findings may guide the policymakers about fund allocation to research projects.

Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers

Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery.

Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers

Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery.

Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions

The scholarly publication landscape continues to grow in complexity, presenting researchers with ever-increasing dilemmas regarding journal choice. However, research into the decision-making processes associated with journal choice is limited. This article contributes by reporting on an international survey of researchers in various disciplines and with varying levels of experience. The study examines the extent to which various journal characteristics affect journal selection, perceptions of the extent to which university and national research policies impact on their journal choice, and the influence of academics’ familiarity, confidence and objectives on journal choice. The most important factors influencing journal choice were as follows: reliability of reviewing, usefulness of reviewers’ feedback, the reputation of the journal and confidence that their article is in scope for the journal. Publishing productivity, publishing experience, researcher role and discipline had little impact on the ranking of journal choice factors, suggesting that the research community is homogeneous.

The citation advantage for open access science journals with and without article processing charges

In this study of access models, we compared citation performance in journals that do and do not levy article processing charges (APCs) as part of their business model. We used a sample of journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) science class and its 13 subclasses and recorded four citation metrics: JIF, H-index, citations per publication (CPP) and quartile rank. We examined 1881 science journals indexed in DOAJ. Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science were used to extract JIF, H-index, CPP and quartile category. Overall, the JIF, H-index and CPP indicated that APC and non-APC open access (OA) journals had equal impact. Quartile category ranking indicated a difference in favour of APC journals. In each science subclass, we found significant differences between APC and non-APC journals in all citation metrics except for quartile rank. Discipline-related variations were observed in non-APC journals. Differences in the rank positions of scores in different groups identified citation advantages for non-APC journals in physiology, zoology, microbiology and geology, followed by botany, astronomy and general biology. Impact ranged from moderate to low in physics, chemistry, human anatomy, mathematics, general science and natural history. The results suggest that authors should consider field- and discipline-related differences in the OA citation advantage, especially when they are considering non-APC OA journals categorised in two or more subjects. This may encourage OA publishing at least in the science class.

Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers

While journal articles are still considered the most important sources of scholarly reading, libraries may no longer have a monopoly on providing discovery and access. Many other sources of scholarly information are available to readers. This international study examines how researchers discover, read, and use scholarly literature for their work. Respondents in 2018 report an average of almost 20 article readings a month and there are still significant differences found in the reading and use of scholarly literature by discipline and geographical location, consistent with the earlier studies. Researchers show they are willing to change or adopt new strategies to discover and obtain articles.

Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline

This research contributes to the knowledge on academics’ attitudes towards peer review, through an international and inter-disciplinary survey of academics, which profiles academics’ views on the value of peer review, its benefits and the prevalence of unethical practices. Generally, academics regarded peer review as beneficial to improving their article and felt that peer review contributed significantly to the effectiveness of scholarly communication. Academics agreed that peer review could improve the readability and quality of the published paper, as well as check for accuracy, appropriate methodology, novelty and relevance to the journal. There are significant differences in the views of respondents on the basis of role, with those involved as reviewers and editors being less positive about peer review than authors. In addition, there is evidence of some disciplinary differences in views on the benefits of peer review.

Medical and health sciences academics’ behaviours and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: a perspective from South Korea

This article seeks to extend the knowledge of the behaviour and attitudes towards open access publishing through a survey that focusses on the attitudes and behaviours of academic researchers in Korea working in medicine and healthcare. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and re-use. A significant proportion of the articles (mean 58%) published by this group are published gold open access, consistent with the push in Korea towards international impact for their research. Researchers were more positive about the benefits of OAP than they were negative about its disadvantages. Analysis of responses on the basis of gender, and experience in publishing, showed some significant differences in attitudes to some statements.

Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals exist in nursing and lack the safeguards of traditional publishing practices.

PURPOSE

To examine the quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals.

METHOD

Randomly selected articles (n = 358) were reviewed for structural content and eight quality indicators.

FINDINGS

Two-thirds (67.4%) of the articles were published between 2014 and 2016, demonstrating the acceleration of publications in predatory nursing journals. The majority (75.9%) of the articles were research reports. Most followed the IMRAD presentation of a research report but contained errors, or the study was not pertinent to the nursing discipline.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing research published in predatory journals may appear legitimate by conforming to an expected structure. However, a lack of quality is apparent, representing inadequate peer review and editorial processes. Poor quality research erodes the scholarly nursing literature.

Twenty years of readership of library and information science literature under Mendeley’s microscope

Purpose

Altmetric indicators have been proposed as a complement to citation counts in research evaluation. Conceivably, they might also be used to supplement other methods for estimating journal readership. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of Mendeley reference management software to characterize the features of the readership of library and information science (LIS) literature.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors used the Social Sciences Citation Index to retrieve 54,655 articles and reviews published between 1995 and 2014 and indexed in the category “Information Science & Library Science”. Each record was then searched in Mendeley to obtain the number of bookmarks of the paper and the academic status of the users.

Findings

Mendeley covers 61 per cent of the LIS literature published in the last 20 years. In all, 75 per cent of the papers published in the last five years had been bookmarked at least once in Mendeley whereas just 55 per cent had been cited in Web of Science. Reviews are bookmarked more frequently than articles, and papers in English have more bookmarks than papers in any other language. Most users of LIS literature are PhD and postgraduate students.

Originality/value

The study shows that altmetrics can be used as a source of data in information behaviour studies. Reference management software provides an unobtrusive means of capturing reading habits in the scholarly literature. Compared to citation counts, bookmarks are rapidly available and also reflect usage outside the academic community.