Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age

• Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Anderson, P. (1997). ‘Gatekeepers’ and the quality of the journal literature: Findings from a survey of journal editors into the issue of alleged excessive publication in scholarly and scientific journals. Serials Review, 23(2), 45–57.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & research libraries, 65(5), 372–382.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Axelrod, R. M. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

  Google Scholar 

• Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2004). A formalised model of the scientific publication process. Online Information Review, 28(1), 8–21.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 73.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blake, G., & Bly, R. W. (1993). The elements of technical writing. Harlow: Longman.

  Google Scholar 

• Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(Suppl 3), 7280–7287.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Colledge, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., El Aisati, M., & Moed, H. F. (2010). SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus. Serials, 23(3), 215–221.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: An unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El profesional de la información, 21(4), 419–427.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Elsevier. (2016). Scopus. from Elsevier http://www.scopus.com/.

• Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Google. (2016a). Google finance currency converter. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/finance/converter.

• Google. (2016b). Google Scholar Metrics. Retrieved January 2016 https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html.

• Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. L. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 1–24.

• Gu, X., Blackmore, K., Cornforth, D., & Nesbitt, K. (2015). Modelling Academics as Agents An Implementation of an Agent-Based Strategic Publication Model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2), 10.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Guerrero, R., & Piqueras, M. (2010). Open access. A turning point in scientific publication. International Microbiology, 7(3), 157–161.

  Google Scholar 

• Guz, A., & Rushchitsky, J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351–362.

  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 139–151.

• Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-lib Magazine, 10(6).

• Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education? Paper presented at the IAU 13th General Conference. The Netherlands: Utrecht.

  Google Scholar 

• Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jacsó, P. (2001). A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: the journal impact factor. Cortex, 37(4), 590–594.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P., & Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(6), 1346–1366.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kapelianis, D., & Cabell, D. W. (1999). Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities in management and marketing. 440–442.

• Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the journal citation reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2009). Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Paper presented at the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference, Austin, TX, USA.

• MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mölders, M., Fink, R. D., & Weyer, J. (2011). Modeling scientists as agents. How scientists cope with the challenges of the new public management of science. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(4), 6.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nisonger, T. E. (1998). Management of Serials in Libraries. Maryland: ERIC.

  Google Scholar 

• Relman, A. S. (1990). Peer review in scientific journals–what good is it? Western Journal of Medicine, 153(5), 520.

  Google Scholar 

• Rice, B. A., & Stankus, T. (1983). Publication quality indicators for tenure or promotion decisions: What can the librarian ethically report? College and Research Libraries, 44(2), 173–178.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 179–184.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Solari, A., & Magri, M.-H. (2000). A new approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a system for evaluating scientific journals. Scientometrics, 47(3), 605–625.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1).

• Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Statzner, B., & Resh, V. H. (2010). Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: Potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55(12), 2639–2653.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Svensson, G., Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2006). How international are the top academic journals? The case of marketing. European Business Review, 18(6), 422–436.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009a). The growth of journals publishing. The future of the academic journal, 1(84334), 416.

  Google Scholar 

• Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009b). The growth of journals publishing. Oxford: Chandos Oxford.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Thomson Reuters. (2014). Cabell’s international. Retrieved from http://cabells.com/index.aspx.

• Thomson Reuters. (2016). Journal citation Reports^®. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/.

• Tuttle, M. (1987). The serials directory: An international reference book. Serials Review, 13(2), 5–14.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• XE currency exchange website. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.xe.com.

• Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1998). Internationalization of scientific journals: A measurement based on publication and citation scope. Scientometrics, 41(1), 255–271.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references