Publish or impoverish

Wei, Quan; Chen, Bikun; Shu, Fei

doi:10.1108/ajim-01-2017-0014

Cited by 196 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the main journals from the domain of health/medical science are a bit different for the two groups, they share some library and information science journals such as Scientometrics, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and Journal of Informetrics. (Liu et al 2015a(Liu et al , 2015bQuan et al 2017;Tang et al 2015).…”

Section: Role Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Web of Science and Scopus are two world-leading and competing citation databases. By using the Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this paper conducts a comparative, dynamic, and empirical study focusing on the use of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus in academic papers published during 2004 and 2018. This brief communication reveals that although both Web of Science and Scopus are increasingly used in academic papers, Scopus as a new-comer is really challenging the dominating role of WoS. Researchers from more and more countries/regions and knowledge domains are involved in the use of these two databases. Even though the main producers of related papers are developed economies, some developing economies such as China, Brazil and Iran also act important roles but with different patterns in the use of these two databases. Both two databases are widely used in meta-analysis related studies especially for researchers in China. Health/medical science related domains and the traditional Information Science & Library Science field stand out in the use of citation databases.

show abstract

Section: Role Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…China, ever the close neighbour of Vietnam, has been known to boost its academia with economic means: its policies could be as drastic as rewarding up to USD 165,000 for a publication in top-tier journals such as Nature or Science (Abritis, McCook, & Watch, 2017). There is, in fact, a stark correlation between the value of compensations and China's yearly scientific production (Quan, Chen, & Shu, 2017).…”

Section: Traps and Pitfallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The harsh world of publishing in emerging regions and implications for editors and publishers: The case of Vietnam

Vuong

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the emergence of academic publishing in a fast‐growing transition economy, Vietnam, where the race has heated up to publish in international journals, preferably with a high impact factor, and to accelerate the indexing of domestic journals. Within the fields of SSH alone, the publication output grew by 17% a year in the 2008–2018 period, encouraged by government policies and financial incentives for researchers. This review demonstrates an environment where there is sufficient financial growth to support increased R&D but limited skills and knowledge of how to increase quality publication output, either within national or international journals. The article highlights the drivers of increasing scientific publication output, as well as the traps and pitfalls that follow this competition. It suggests that there are opportunities for publishers and other organizations to improve ethical and practical publishing issues and to develop co‐publishing agreements that will increase the visibility of the country in international academia. The article indicates the harsh reality of pursuing higher publishing standards in academia, a world that has long been dominated by authors and publishers from industrialized countries.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, women have been found to hold themselves to higher 66 standards [48] and be less likely to compete [49], hence they may self-select a higher quality of 67 work for submission to prestigious journals. At the country level, disparities in peer review 68 outcomes could reflect structural factors related to a nation's scientific investment [15,50], 69 publication incentives [51,52], local challenges [53], and research culture [54], all of which could 70 influence the actual and perceived quality of submissions from different nations. There are also 71 several intersectional issues: there are, for example, differences in socio-demographic 72 characteristics of the scientific workforce across countries-e.g., more women from some 73 countries and disproportionately less professionally-senior women in others [6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

137

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

show abstract

Publish or impoverish

Cited by 196 publications

References 24 publications

A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers

A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers

The harsh world of publishing in emerging regions and implications for editors and publishers: The case of Vietnam

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About