Do open‐access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? A bibliometric study of selected open‐access journals using Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Bhaskar

doi:10.1002/asi.21003

Cited by 27 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparison study is suggested, focusing on different journals in a certain field over a long period of time and examining the effect of the digitalization of scholarly resources on selfcitations. With the rise of open access, citation behavior has been affected by open-access journals (Mukherjee 2009). Since open-access journals are generally wanting in authoritative indexing and abstracting tools, they may easily fail to be found in traditional research approaches; in such circumstances, will this make a difference to citation behavior in terms of citations of the self and others?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations

Lin

Huang

2011

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to identify the relationship between co-authorship and the currency of the references and author self-citations in the key journals of environmental engineering. The results show that the self-citation rate of co-authored articles is higher than in single-authored articles. A statistically significant correlation is identified between the numbers of co-authors, the rate of author self-citing and the author self-cited; though it was a low correlation. The value of coefficient correlation between the number of co-authors and the author self-citing rate is slightly higher than that between the number of co-authors and the author self-cited rate, which indicates that the number of co-authors hold a stronger correlation with the self-citing rate than the self-cited rate. Meanwhile, self-citing references are found to be more up-to-date than references to others. The range of publication years of self-citing references is smaller than that of references to others, indicating that researchers tend to preferentially cite their own recent works. There is no significant difference in the latest references between self-citing references and the references to others. It might result from electronic journals that provide an easy access to the most current publications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations

Lin

Huang

2011

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rousseau () reported that high self‐cited rates are indicators of a journals’ low visibility and inferred that leading journals generally exhibit low self‐cited rates, whereas marginal journals have high self‐cited rates. Mukherjee () focused on open access journals in the library and information field and supported Rousseau's argument that journals with low self‐cited rates are cited by other journals because of their high visibility, indicating that such journals are highly influential in their domains.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 96%

The performance of Asian S&T journals in international citation indicators

Lin

2017

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 , thus indicating that citation counts can be affected by the number of articles published in a journal. Mukherjee 11 counted total articles published in a 4-year period (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004) for 17 open access LIS journals but did not find an increase in citations for all journals in the sample, thus concluding that 'just being open access is not a guarantee of success' 11 . Mukherjee 11 counted only content considered 'citable' (that is, excluding editorials, book reviews, news items and such) and listed on Google Scholar, as not all journals -and particularly LIS journals -are indexed in the large scientific databases of Web of Science and Scopus.…”

Section: Citations As Indicators Of Discoverability and Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Transition to open: A metrics analysis of discoverability and accessibility of LIS scholarship

Raju¹,

Mfengu²,

Kahn³

et al. 2019

S. Afr. J. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metrics analysis of journal content has become an important point for debate and discussion in research and in higher education. The South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science (SAJLIS), a premier journal in the library and information science (LIS) field in South Africa, in its 85-year history, has had multiple editors and many contributing authors and has published over 80 volumes and 160 issues on a diversity of topics reflective of LIS theory, policy and practice. However, how discoverable and accessible has the LIS scholarship carried by the Journal been to its intended readership? SAJLIS transitioned to open access in 2012 and this new format in scholarly communication impacted the Journal significantly. The purpose of this paper is to report on a multiple metrics analysis of discoverability and accessibility of LIS scholarship via SAJLIS from 2012 to 2017. The inquiry takes a quantitative approach within a post-positivist paradigm involving computer-generated numerical data as well as manual data mining for extraction of qualitative elements. In using such a multiple metrics analysis to ascertain the discoverability and accessibility of LIS scholarship via SAJLIS in the period 2012 to 2017, the study employs performance metrics theory to guide the analysis. We highlight performance strengths of SAJLIS in terms of discoverability and accessibility of the scholarship it conveys; identify possible growth areas for strategic planning for the next 5 years; and make recommendations for further study for a more complete picture of performance strengths and areas for improvement.

show abstract

Do open‐access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? A bibliometric study of selected open‐access journals using Google Scholar

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations

The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations

The performance of Asian S&T journals in international citation indicators

Transition to open: A metrics analysis of discoverability and accessibility of LIS scholarship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About