1,724,335 research outputs found
Retraction: Practical Work of Digital System Course Based on Virtual Laboratory
No full textThe article (https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i08.23359) has been retracted by the journal editors on 2025-07-25 because it contains cross-language plagiarism from a dissertation entitled “Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Online Untuk Praktik Teknik Digital di Perguruan Tinggi,” authored by Muchlas, and published in 2013 which is available online at https://eprints.uad.ac.id/7154/
Meet the Journal Editors
Full text linkThe purpose of the “Meet the Journal Editors” panel session is to provide attendees with an opportunity to meet, interact with, and hear the views of journal editors from leading international IS journals. This panel is targeted toward active researchers interested in learning about possible publication opportunities. Each panellist will briefly overview their journal and share key points about the journal to assist researchers targeting the journals for publication consideration. Attendees will benefit by asking questions about manuscript preparation, qualities that are found in a publishable manuscript, the review process, responding to peer reviewers’ comments, preparing the final article or any other publication concerns
Recommendations for policy makers and journal editors.
No full text<p>Recommendations for policy makers and journal editors.</p
ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites
Full text linkFull author list omitted for brevity. For the full list of authors, see article.At the recent Journals Board meeting that took place during ASM Microbe 2016 in Boston, MA, the journal editors in chief and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) leadership decided to no longer advertise the impact factors of ASM journals. This editorial was published simultaneously by the following ASM journals: Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Infection and Immunity, Journal of Clinical Microbiology, mBio, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, mSphere, and mSystems
Perceptions of Open Access Publishing among Academic Journal Editors in China
Full text linkOpen access publishing is examined from the perspective of academic journal editors in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In addition to providing background information on academic publishing in China, the author incorporates interviews with two editors from open access and four from traditional subscription-based journals in the region. The editors share their general views on Chinese academic publishing and reflect on how open access has or could affect their publications. The editors comment on such issues as the economic viability of open access publishing in China and the potential benefits and challenges faced by Chinese academic journal editors who pursue open access
Introducing the Journal Editors Discussion Interface
Full text linkJournal editors play an important role in advancing open science in their respective fields. However, their role is temporary and (usually) part time, and therefore many do not have enough time to dedicate towards changing policies, practices, and procedures at their journals. The Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, https://dpjedi.org) is an online community for journal editors in the social sciences that was launched in 2021, consisting of a listserv and resource page. JEDI aims to increase uptake of open science at social science journals by providing journal editors with a space to learn and discuss. In this paper, we explore JEDI’s progress in its first two years, presenting data on membership, posts, and from a members survey. We see a reasonable mix of people participating in listserv conversations and there are no detectable differences among groups in the number of replies received by thread-starters. The community survey suggests JEDI members find conversations and resources on JEDI generally informative and useful, and see JEDI primarily as a community to get honest opinions from others on editorial practices. However, JEDI membership is not as heterogeneous as would be ideal for the purpose of the group, especially when considering geographic diversity
Introducing the Journal Editors Discussion Interface
No full textJournal editors play an important role in advancing open science in their respective fields. However, their role is temporary and (usually) part time, and therefore many do not have enough time to dedicate towards changing policies, practices, and procedures at their journals. The Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, https://dpjedi.org) is an online community for journal editors in the social sciences that was launched in 2021, consisting of a listserv and resource page. JEDI aims to increase uptake of open science at social science journals by providing journal editors with a space to learn and discuss. In this paper, we explore JEDI’s progress in its first two years, presenting data on membership, posts, and from a members survey. We see a reasonable mix of people participating in listserv conversations and there are no detectable differences among groups in the number of replies received by thread-starters. The community survey suggests JEDI members find conversations and resources on JEDI generally informative and useful, and see JEDI primarily as a community to get honest opinions from others on editorial practices. However, JEDI membership is not as heterogeneous as would be ideal for the purpose of the group, especially when considering geographic diversity
Concentration in Knowledge Output: A case of Economics Journals
Full text linkThis paper assesses the degree of author concentration in seven economics journals, which were published in India during 1990-2002. To measure the degree of author concentration, Lotka's Law was used. Moreover, we also make an exploratory analysis of the geographic, economics subfield and institutional concentration in 704 economics journals. An important finding of this paper is that specialized journals in the sample report the highest degree of author concentration. This result is quite similar to the findings by Cox and Chung (1991). Furthermore, there are several instances showing that the journals lean towards certain norms; this may affect the flow of innovative ideas into economics. We conclude that a knowledge activity, involving the high degree of concentration and a biased publication process, may affect the flow of new ideas into the discipline.Concentration, Lotka's Law
Author Self-Citation in the Turkish Otorhinolaryngology Literature
Full text linkObjective:To evaluate the prevalence and other characteristics of author self-citations in six Turkey-originated general otorhinolaryngology (ORL) journals of Turkish ORL literature.Methods:A total of 970 articles published in six Turkey-originated general ORL journals (ENT Updates, Journal of Ear Nose Throat and Head Neck Surgery, KBB-Forum, Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology, The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat, and Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology) in 2016-2020 were analyzed for author self-citations. The association between author self-citations and journal types, study types, study topics, country of origin, and compatibility with the topic were also evaluated.Results:There were 265 author self-citations (0.273 per article) which corresponded to 1.36% of all citations. There was no significant difference between the journal types, study topics, and origin of the studies in terms of mean self-citation values per study, whereas case reports had significantly lower self-citations than review and original investigations. There were three citations (1.1%) that were irrelevant to the study topic.Conclusion:To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that investigated the practice of author self-citation in Turkish ORL literature. Author self-citation rate in the Turkish-originated general ORL journals was found remarkably lower than the medical literature, whereas the self-citations were found compatible with the study topic to a very large extent. Members of the scientific community including authors, readers, and journal editors should be cautious regarding the unethical practices of self-citations
Journal editors: How do their editing incomes compare?
No full textData set for "Journal editors: How do their editing incomes compare?". Data provided is a limited de-identified dataset
- …
