Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?

Xu, Jie; Yuan, Xiaoqun

doi:10.1087/20130205

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The large number of Chinese papers submitted to PLOS One could be related to the impact factor achieved by that journal and its reputation for speed in making decisions and obtaining the accepted paper online quickly. Xu and Yuan () make a distinction between responses to a survey of theirs, which showed differentiation in attitudes to paying to publish between STM and HSS researchers. There has been one study, Guo et al .…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is, moreover in many contributions, a definite agenda related to Open Science/Web 2.0. Xu and Yuan () write ‘The gap between the state of China's scholarly publishing industry and the current demands of Internet‐based scientific communication is widening rather than narrowing’ (p. 99). Nevertheless, they are hopeful that an ‘Internet‐based scholarly communication ecosystem is forming in China’ (p. 93).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Xu and Yuan () explain that the current and past evaluation systems for Chinese researchers are explicitly based on the impact factor of the journal in which a paper is published. They write: ‘It is reasonable to believe that if the institutes evaluate researchers' performance in an online friendly way, counting the number of downloads for example, author responses…might well change.’ (p. 95) and such a move is, of course, possible in a centralized system.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…OA journals and OA articles are not the primary consideration of scholarly journal publishers in China' (p. 348). Xu and Yuan (2013) explain that the current and past evaluation systems for Chinese researchers are explicitly based on the impact factor of the journal in which a paper is published. They write: 'It is reasonable to believe that if the institutes evaluate researchers' performance in an online friendly way, counting the number of downloads for example, author responses…might well change.'…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour and trust

Nicholas

et al. 2016

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 660 Chinese researchers were questioned about their scholarly use, citing, and publishing and how trust is exercised in these key activities. Research showed few signs of new forms of scholarly usage behaviour taking hold, despite multiple opportunities afforded by Science 2.0 developments. Thus, for determining trustworthiness for usage purposes, the most important activity was reading the abstract. In terms of citations, citing the seminal source was the most common activity. In contrast, citing non‐peer reviewed sources, such as the social media, was not thought acceptable. For publishing, relevance to the field was the most important factor when choosing a place to publish. Comparisons were made with a study of 3650 international researchers, which employed the same methods and questions. The main differences between Chinese and international researchers were that the former (a) rated abstracts more highly, (b) took into account impact factors more when citing and publishing and (c) were much more likely to be influenced by institutional directives when placing their articles.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour and trust

Nicholas

et al. 2016

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comparison to STM disciplines, HSS scholars are granted much fewer funding opportunities [66]. Because of this, Chinese authors from HSS fields are more reluctant to accept the author-pays model [67]. Thus for Chinese-language OA publishers in these disciplines, sufficient governmental commitments are needed to financially support them to survive and develop.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Scholarly Journal Publishing in Chinese

Shen¹

2017

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research literature on open access (OA) publishing has mainly dealt with journals publishing in English, and studies focusing on OA journals in other languages are less common. This article addresses this gap via a case study focusing on Chinese-language OA journals. It starts with the identification of the major characteristics of this market, followed by eight semi-structured interviews to explore the key motivations behind Chinese-language OA publishing and perceived barriers. The majority of Chinese OA journals are published in Chinese, and most of them are published by universities and scholarly societies. Nearly 80% of journals were launched before the digital age and were converted to OA later. The subject distribution is highly skewed towards the science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM) fields. Publishers are motivated to convert journals to OA by an expected increase in academic impact, which would also attract more submissions. The lack of a sufficient number of high-quality submissions is perceived as the largest barrier to the successful publishing of journals. The financial instability of journals is identified as the main obstacle hindering internationalisation. The central conclusions of the study are that Chinese-language OA journals need to increase their visibility in journal indexes such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and that an OA publishing platform (similar to the Latin American SciELO) should be established for Chinese-language OA journals.

show abstract

Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature: 83

McGrath

2013

Interlending &Amp; Document Supply

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the current LIS literature for document supply and related topics. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on the scanning and reading of about 150 journals, reports, and web sites. Findings – There is continued growth in freely available articles. There are dramatic development in open access initiatives especially in the US and some confusion in the UK. A study shows the dramatic impact on journal cancellations in a six month embargo environment with a likely increase in ILL. Publisher constraints on copying are a constant obstacle and those on e-books are now receiving more attention by librarians. Originality/value – This is the only regular literature review that focuses on document supply and related issues.

show abstract

Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour and trust

Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour and trust

Open Access Scholarly Journal Publishing in Chinese

Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature: 83

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About