Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Innovations in scholarly publishing have led to new possibilities for academic journals (e.g., open access), and provided scholars with a range of indicators that can be used to evaluate their characteristics and their impact. This study identifies and evaluates the journal characteristics reported in five databases: Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory (Ulrichs), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), Google Scholar Metrics (GS), and Cabell’s Periodical Directory (Cabells). It describes the 13 indicators (variables) that are available through these databases—scholarly impact, subject category, age, total articles, distribution medium, open access, peer review, acceptance rate, pricing, language, country, status, and issue frequency—and highlights the similarities and differences in the ways these indicators are defined and reported. The study also addresses the ways in which this kind of information can be used to better understand particular journals as well as the scholarly publishing system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1997). ‘Gatekeepers’ and the quality of the journal literature: Findings from a survey of journal editors into the issue of alleged excessive publication in scholarly and scientific journals. Serials Review, 23(2), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & research libraries, 65(5), 372–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. M. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2004). A formalised model of the scientific publication process. Online Information Review, 28(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, G., & Bly, R. W. (1993). The elements of technical writing. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(Suppl 3), 7280–7287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colledge, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., El Aisati, M., & Moed, H. F. (2010). SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus. Serials, 23(3), 215–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: An unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El profesional de la información, 21(4), 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier. (2016). Scopus. from Elsevier http://www.scopus.com/.

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google. (2016a). Google finance currency converter. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/finance/converter.

  • Google. (2016b). Google Scholar Metrics. Retrieved January 2016 https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html.

  • Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. L. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 1–24.

  • Gu, X., Blackmore, K., Cornforth, D., & Nesbitt, K. (2015). Modelling Academics as Agents An Implementation of an Agent-Based Strategic Publication Model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, R., & Piqueras, M. (2010). Open access. A turning point in scientific publication. International Microbiology, 7(3), 157–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guz, A., & Rushchitsky, J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351–362.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 139–151.

  • Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-lib Magazine, 10(6).

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education? Paper presented at the IAU 13th General Conference. The Netherlands: Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2001). A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: the journal impact factor. Cortex, 37(4), 590–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P., & Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(6), 1346–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapelianis, D., & Cabell, D. W. (1999). Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities in management and marketing. 440–442.

  • Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the journal citation reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2009). Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Paper presented at the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference, Austin, TX, USA.

  • MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mölders, M., Fink, R. D., & Weyer, J. (2011). Modeling scientists as agents. How scientists cope with the challenges of the new public management of science. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(4), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisonger, T. E. (1998). Management of Serials in Libraries. Maryland: ERIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relman, A. S. (1990). Peer review in scientific journals–what good is it? Western Journal of Medicine, 153(5), 520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, B. A., & Stankus, T. (1983). Publication quality indicators for tenure or promotion decisions: What can the librarian ethically report? College and Research Libraries, 44(2), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solari, A., & Magri, M.-H. (2000). A new approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a system for evaluating scientific journals. Scientometrics, 47(3), 605–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1).

  • Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statzner, B., & Resh, V. H. (2010). Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: Potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55(12), 2639–2653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, G., Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2006). How international are the top academic journals? The case of marketing. European Business Review, 18(6), 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009a). The growth of journals publishing. The future of the academic journal, 1(84334), 416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009b). The growth of journals publishing. Oxford: Chandos Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Reuters. (2014). Cabell’s international. Retrieved from http://cabells.com/index.aspx.

  • Thomson Reuters. (2016). Journal citation Reports®. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/.

  • Tuttle, M. (1987). The serials directory: An international reference book. Serials Review, 13(2), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • XE currency exchange website. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.xe.com.

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1998). Internationalization of scientific journals: A measurement based on publication and citation scope. Scientometrics, 41(1), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Communication and Information Technology, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia

    Xin Gu & Karen Blackmore

Authors
  1. Xin Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Blackmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Gu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gu, X., Blackmore, K. Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age. Scientometrics 110, 1333–1350 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2219-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2219-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation