Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age
- 723 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAcademic journal Attributes Impact factor Ranking Journal age Acceptance rate
Mathematics Subject Classification94A99
- 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
- Blake, G., & Bly, R. W. (1993). The elements of technical writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
- Elsevier. (2016). Scopus. from Elsevier http://www.scopus.com/.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Guerrero, R., & Piqueras, M. (2010). Open access. A turning point in scientific publication. International Microbiology, 7(3), 157–161.Google Scholar
- Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 139–151.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education? Paper presented at the IAU 13th General Conference. The Netherlands: Utrecht.Google Scholar
- Kapelianis, D., & Cabell, D. W. (1999). Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities in management and marketing. 440–442.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.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
- Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1).Google Scholar
- Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009a). The growth of journals publishing. The future of the academic journal, 1(84334), 416.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/.
- XE currency exchange website. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.xe.com.