Étiquette : scholarly journals

Catégories
EN

The role of editorial boards in shaping scholarly communication: A large-scale mapping of their composition and structure

Authors : Evangelina Becerra-Rodero, José Luis Ortega

Editorial boards play a central role in shaping scholarly communication by influencing what research is published and how disciplinary boundaries are defined. Despite their importance, large-scale, systematic evidence on their composition and structure remains limited.

This study provides a comprehensive descriptive analysis of editorial boards across major scholarly publishers, with the aim of characterizing their organizational structure and the distribution of editorial positions. Using a corpus of over 810,000 editorial positions across more than 10,000 journals from 15 publishers, we examine board size and its relationship to journal output, develop a harmonized nine-class ontology of editorial roles, and analyze gender representation, institutional sectors, and geographic distribution.

We also benchmark coverage against the Open Editors dataset, a previously released resource on editorial board composition. The results reveal stratified editorial structures dominated by operational roles, a positive association between board size and journal throughput, and a strong concentration of editors in academic institutions.

Women represent approximately one-third of identified editors, and editorial presence is concentrated in the United States and Western Europe. This study provides large-scale descriptive evidence on editorial board organization and establishes an empirical baseline for future research on editorial governance, diversity, and the distribution of influence in scholarly publishing.

URL : The role of editorial boards in shaping scholarly communication: A large-scale mapping of their composition and structure

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fasi.70108

Catégories
EN

Assessing open access scholarly journals for integration into artificial intelligence research assistants

Authors : Sanja Gidakovic, Heather Moulaison-Sandy, Jenny Bossalle

Introduction

Freely available standalone AI research assistants such as Elicit and Consensus are used by academics to find relevant literature. These systems rely extensively on freely available sources, including open access journal content. No baseline for understanding the level of quality of such journals used in these assistants has been carried out.

Method

A sample of 807 English-language journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals that became open access before 2021 was investigated for quality metrics using SCImago rankings and other defining characteristics and analysed in conjunction with the Directory data.

Analysis

Scimago journal ranking quartile scores were recorded for each of the journals. Descriptive statistics were produced using Excel, and visualizations using Tableau Public.

Results

Of our sample, over half were ranked in Scopus, and many were in quartile 1. Many university or small association journals were unranked.

Conclusions

AI research assistants may miss some high-quality open access content due to reliance on metrics. Commercial enterprises play a large role in sources used to produce content, effectively gatekeeping the process and potentially shaping the creation of new knowledge.

URL : Assessing open access scholarly journals for integration into artificial intelligence research assistants

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31263095

Catégories
EN

The evolution of Baltic scientific journals

Authors : Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Péter Sasvári, Arūnas Gudinavičius

This study examines the evolution of scientific journals in the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, through a scientometric lens, assessing their international integration, publication trends, and impact within the global research ecosystem.

Using Scopus and SciVal databases, we analysed 49,695 articles from 122 Baltic journals indexed in Scopus, focusing on quartile rankings, subject area distributions, citation impact, and international collaborations.

The findings reveal that while the number of Baltic journals has increased significantly since 1990, these journals remain largely positioned in the lower quartiles (Q3 and Q4), with few achieving Q1 status. Social sciences and humanities dominate the Baltic publishing landscape, yet these disciplines exhibit relatively low citation metrics compared to STEM fields. International collaboration remains limited, with single-country publications (SCPs) prevailing, though a notable rise in co-authorship with Chinese scholars in Lithuanian journals has emerged.

Despite digitalization efforts, there are still systemic problems. Peer review challenges persist due to small academic communities and language barriers. Furthermore, Baltic journals are not visible internationally. Citation impact remains modest, with older articles experiencing diminishing citation rates over time.

Our study highlights the need for enhanced journal management practices, greater international collaboration, and increased indexing efforts to improve the global visibility and prestige of Baltic journals.

URL : The evolution of Baltic scientific journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05580-7

Catégories
FR

The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 30 ans dans la vie des communautés académiques

Autrice/Author : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

L’anniversaire d’une revue savante est toujours un moment important. Avant tout, pour son comité éditorial, et aussi pour la communauté scientifique et professionnelle qui se réunit autour du titre et qui se nourrit de ses contenus. C’est un point d’étape qui permet de faire un pas de côté afin d’appréhender ce qui a été réalisé, ce qui est en cours de conception et ce qui reste toujours à accomplir.

URL : The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 30 ans dans la vie des communautés académiques

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.8311

Catégories
EN

Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals

Authors : Maryna Nazarovets, Serhii Nazarovets

Editorial endogamy, the over-representation of scholars affiliated with a journal’s host institution on its editorial board, is a widespread phenomenon in university journals (UJs). This practice is often shaped by institutional traditions, resource limitations, internal loyalty, promotion incentives, and opaque selection practices.

While some degree of institutional representation is inevitable, excessive editorial endogamy raises concerns about peer review integrity, international visibility, and negatively impacts the credibility and inclusivity of scholarly publishing. This review explores the systemic drivers of editorial endogamy, focusing on institutional governance structures, national research policies, and academic evaluation frameworks that influence editorial board composition in UJs.

Additionally, we review best practices to mitigate negative effects, including increasing editorial transparency, diversifying peer review processes, and strengthening regulatory oversight. Strategies such as rotational editorial leadership, transparent peer review policies, structured regulatory interventions, and cross-institutional collaborations are recommended to balance institutional autonomy with international publishing standards.

The implementation of these measures has the potential to enhance the credibility, inclusivity, and global impact of UJs while preserving their role in supporting local and disciplinary research communities.

Recognizing the constraints faced by many UJs, we propose flexible and scalable solutions to enhance editorial integrity while considering the operational realities of university-based publishing. Effectively addressing editorial endogamy requires coordinated action among universities, journal editors, and policymakers.

URL : s10805-025-09Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals687-z

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09687-z

Catégories
EN

Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

Authors : Erin Watson, AHI, Li Zhang

Objective

Predatory journal articles do not undergo rigorous peer review and so their quality is potentially lower. Citing them disseminates the unreliable data they may contain and may undermine the integrity of science. Using citation analysis techniques, this study investigates the influence of predatory journals in the health sciences.

Methods

The twenty-six journals in the “Medical Sciences” category of a known predatory publisher were selected. The number of articles published by these journals was recorded based on the information from their websites. The “Cited References” search function in Web of Science was used to retrieve citation data for these journals.

Results

Of the 3,671 articles published in these predatory journals, 1,151 (31.4%) were cited at least once by 3,613 articles indexed in Web of Science. The number of articles that cited articles published in predatory journals increased significantly from 64 in 2014 to 665 in 2022, an increase of 10-fold in nine years. The citing articles were published by researchers from all over the world (from high-, middle-, and lower-income countries) and in the journals of traditional and open access publishers. Forty-three percent (1,560/3,613) of the citing articles were supported by research funds.

Conclusions

The content from articles published in predatory journals has infiltrated reputable health sciences journals to a substantial extent. It is crucial to develop strategies to prevent citing such articles.

URL : Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2024

 

Catégories
EN

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

Authors : Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M. Odeh, Shawn M. Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

Background

Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.

Methods

The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).

URL : Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211