Qualitative Analysis of the Scholarly Publication System Dimensions in the Scholarly Publication Databases

Hamrahi, Afrooz, Pournaghi, Roya and Matlabi, Dariush Qualitative Analysis of the Scholarly Publication System Dimensions in the Scholarly Publication Databases. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2022, vol. 38, n. 2, pp. 95-121. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of JIPM_Volume 38_Issue 2_Pages 95-121.pdf]
Preview
 Text
JIPM_Volume 38_Issue 2_Pages 95-121.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (995kB) | Preview

English abstract

The main object of this study is analyzing the components and indicators of the scholarly Publication System in the scholarly Publication databases in terms of access, communication, control, infrastructure, language, materials (information resources), support, technology, economics, evaluation, education, ethics and their characteristics. The research community has been identified by content analyzing and 73 databases were extracted, based on the frequency and approval of experts the sample limited to 12 scholarly publication databases. These include the ArXiv, DOAJ, Elsevier, Springer, Google Scholar, PubMed, Nature, Web of Science, Scopus, National Institutes of Health (NIH), SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource Coalition), and Amazon databases. The checklist designed to study these databases is taken from the scholarly Publication System dimensions. Research findings show that all components have been considered in publication databases and the difference between them returned in scholarly Publication indicators. however, according to the type, age and general policy of the databases, some indicators of components; Like education, economics, and information resources has not received enough attention, in all databases, some components such as technology, support and control and their indicators have an equal importance.

Persian abstract

در پایگاههــای نشــر علمــی از منظــر مؤلفههــای دسترســی، ارتباطــات، کنتــرل،چكيــده: هــدف از ایــن پژوهــش، تحلیــل مؤلفههــا و شــاخصهای نشــر علمــ زیرســاخت، زبــان، منابــع اطالعاتــی )مــواد(، پشــتیبانی، فنــاوری، اقتصــاد، ارزیابی،آمــوزش، اخــاق و شــاخصهای آنهاســت. پژوهــش حاضــر از نــوع کیفــی اســت و جامعــة آن بــا اســتفاده از تحلیــل محتــوای متــون علمــی، در مجمــوع، 73 پایــگاه نشــر علمــی شناســایی شــد و نمونــة آن بــر اســاس فراوانــی و تأییـد خبـرگان بـه 12 پایـگاه رسـید کـه شـامل پایگاههـای »آرشـیو«، »دواج«، »الزویــر«، »اشــپرینگر«، »گــوگل اســکالر«، »پابمــد«، »نیچــر«، »وبآوســاینس«، »اســکوپوس«، »مرکــز اطالعــات ســامت«، »کنسرســیوم محتــوای علمــی اســپارک«، و »آمــازون« )بخــش منابــع علمــی( بــود. ابــزار ایــن پژوهــش شــامل ســیاهة وارســی اســت کــه بــر اســاس مؤلفههــا و شــاخصهای نظــام نشــر علمــی اســتخراج شــد. یافتههــا حاکــی از ایــن بــود کــه تمامــی مؤلفههــای دسترســی، ارتباطــات، کنتــرل، زیرســاخت، زبــان، منابــع اطالعاتــی )مــواد(، پشــتیبانی، فنــاوری، اقتصــاد، ارزیابی،آمــوزش و اخــاق در پایگاههــای نشــر علمــی مــورد توجــه قــرار گرفتهانــد و اختــاف پایگاههــا در کاربســت شــاخصهای نشــر علمــی اســت. نتایــج پژوهــش نشــان داد کــه برخــی مؤلفههــا نظیــر فنــاوری، پشــتیبانی وکنتــرل و شــاخصهای آنهــا درایــن پایگاههــا اهمیــت یکســانی

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Scholarly Publication Databases, Information Databases, Scholarly Publication, Scholarly Publication System, Information system, Scientific publications.
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion.
E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HA. Periodicals, Newspapers.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
Depositing user: elahe naseri
Date deposited: 07 Oct 2024 10:01
Last modified: 07 Oct 2024 10:02
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/45226

References

Akterian, S. G. 2018. Towards Open Access Scientific Publishing. Biomedical Reviews [S.l.], 28: 125-133.

Assante, M., L. Candela., D. Castelli et al. 2015. Science 2.0 Repositories: Time for A Change in Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine DOI: https://doi.org/10.1045/january2015-assante

Bargheer, M. & B. Schmidt. 2008. Göttingen University Press: Publishing Services in An Open Access Environment. Information Services and Use 28 (2): 133-139 DOI 10.3233/ISU-2008-0569

Baro, E. E. and M. E. Eze. 2017. Perceptions, Preferences of Scholarly Publishing in Open Access Routes. A survey of academic librarians in Nigeria. Information And Learning Science 118: 152-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0015

Barquinero, J. 2013. Next-Generation Scholarly Communication: A researcher’s perspective. International Microbiology 16 (4): 253-257. DOI: 10.2436/20.1501.01.201

Brantley, S., T. A. Bruns, and K. I. Duffin. 2017. Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication Support as A Developing Core Competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 29: 137-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2017.1340718

CRKN (Canadian Research Knowledge Network). 2019. Canadian Research Knowledge Network: Annual report 2018-2019. Available at https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/sites/crkn/files/2019-10/1028019_CRKN_AR_EN_web_FINAL_0.pdf (accessed Sept. 9, 2021)

Demir, S. B. 2018. A Mixed-Methods Study of the Ex-Post Funding Incentive Policy for Scholarly Publications in Turkey. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 49: 453-476. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.05

Greco, A. N. 2015. Academic Libraries and the Economics of Scholarly Publishing in The Twenty-First Century: Portfolio Theory, Product Differentiation, Economic Rent, Perfect Price Discrimination, and the Cost of Prestige. Journal of Scholarly Publishing DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.01

Guz, A. N. & J. J. Rushchitsky. 2009. Scopus: A System for the Evaluation of Scientific Journals. International Applied Mechanics 45 (4, 2): 351-362.

Hagenhoff, S., B. Ortelbach, and L. Seidenfaden. 2009. A Classification Scheme for Innovative Types in Scholarly Communication. Handbook of Research on Digital Libraries: Design, Development, and Impact. 216-226 DOI: https://doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch021

Herb, U. 2017. Recommendations, Statements, Declarations and Activities of Science Policy Actors on Shaping the Scholarly Communication System. The Future of Scholarly Publishing: Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1035734

Higgs, A. 2018. The New Dimension in Scholarly Communications: How A Global Scholarly Community Collaboration Created the World’s Largest Linked Research Knowledge System. Information Services and Use. 38: 85-89 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180002

Li, J., F. Judy, F. Burnham, et al. 2010. Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, And Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries196-217 (3) 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2010.50551

Kindelan, P. 2009. A Fresh Look at Spanish Scientific Publishing in The Framework of International Standards. European Educational Research Journal. 8: 89-103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.89

Lei, J., and T. Jiang. 2020. Chinese university faculty’s motivation and language choice for scholarly publishing. Ibérica (38): 51–74. Available at: https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/92

Lor, P. J. 2017. Bridging The North-South Divide in Scholarly Communication in Africa-A Library and Information Systems Perspective. IFLA Journal 33: 303-312 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035207086056

Marks, J. & C. Bulock 2016.A Publisher Perspective: How One Publisher Is Responding to The Changing World of Scholarly Communication. Serials Librarian 70 (1-4): 7-13 DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2016.1118327

McGreal, R. and N. S. Chen. 2011. AUPress: A Comparison of An Open Access University Press with Traditional Presses. Educational Technology and Society 14: 231-239 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0650

McPherson, T. 2010. Scaling Vectors: Thoughts on the future of scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0013.208

Mukherjee, B. 2010. Scholarly Communication in Library and Information Services: The Impacts of Open Access Journals and E-Journals on A Changing Scenario. Scholarly Communication in Library and Information Services: The Impacts of Open Access Journals and E-Journals on a Changing Scenario. 1-297 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.020

Nazim, M. & A. Ahmadi 2018. Open Access to Scholarly Communication in India: Current Status. IEEE 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies in Libraries and Information Services, ETTLIS. 8485196 pp. 202-208 DOI: 10.1109/ETTLIS.2018.8485196

Obuh, A. O. 2013. Awareness and Use of Open Access Scholarly Publications by LIS Lecturers in Southern Nigeria. Social Sciences (Pakistan) 8:153-159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2013.106.159

Oladokun, O. 2015. Scholarly Communication in A Digital Environment: Populating the institutional repository of the University of Botswana. Libri; 65: 48-56 DOI: https://doi:10.1515/libri-2014-0117

Oppenheim, C. 2008. Electronic Scholarly Publishing and Open Access. Journal of Information Science 34 (4): 577-590 DOI: 10.1177/0165551508092268

Peekhaus, W. & N. Proferes. 2016. An Examination of North American Library and Information Studies Faculty Perceptions of and Experience with Open-Access Scholarly Publishing. Library and Information Science Research 38: 18-29 DOI: https://doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2016.01.003

Picco, P., N. Aguirre-Ligüera, J. Maldini, et al. 2014. Scholarly Communication in Uruguay: Study of Publications of Active Researchers from the National System of Researchers (2009-2010). Transinformacao 26: 155-165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-37862014000200005

Powell, K. R. & S. R. Peterson. 2017. Coverage and Quality: A Comparison of Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Reporting Faculty Nursing Publication Metrics. Nursing Outlook. 1-15 doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004.

Pranckute, R. 2021. Web Of ˙science (Wos) And Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications, 9, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/

Rieger, O. Y. 2008. Opening up institutional repositories: Social construction of innovation in scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.301

Wei, W. 2013. Scholarly Communication in Science and Engineering Research in Higher Education. London: Rutledge.

Willinsky, J. 2017. Modelling a Cooperative Approach to Open Access Scholarly Publishing: A demonstration in the Canadian context. Canadian. Journal of Communication 42: 923-934 DOI: http://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2017v42n5a3264

Xia, J. 2017. Scholarly Communication at the Crossroads in China. 1st ed. London: Chandos Publishing.

Zheng, Y. & X. Guo. 2018. Publishing in and About English: Challenges and Opportunities of Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Language Practices in Academic Publishing. Language Policy 18 (1): 107-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9464-8


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS