National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

Purpose: This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels. Findings: Several countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels(mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are selective(do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and differentiated(distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented. Research limitation: The conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors' interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders involved.Practical implications: The recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation practices.Originality/value: This paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommendations for the responsible construction and maintenance of publication channel lists.

Transformation and influencing factors of scholarly communication based on knowledge transfer: A case study of science and technology literature

Purpose: The process of scientific literature use can be regarded as that of knowledge transfer. With the help of the knowledge transfer theory and data from scientific literature databases, we explored the behavior of scientific researchers during their scholarly communication, and studied the factors that influenced the behavior of researchers under network environment. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the literature databases of CNKI, Elsevier Science Direct and Springer Link, we used the knowledge transfer theory to construct a model for describing the scholarly communication process, which attempts to find out factors that may influence the communication behavior of researchers. With a focus laid on the absorption behavior of researchers during the knowledge acceptance process, we defined the independent variables of the model and proposed hypotheses on the basis of a comprehensive literature study. Afterwards, college students were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey, which was designed to prove our research model and hypotheses.Findings: Our results showed that during the scholarly communication, it is not the professional knowledge, but the ability and willingness for knowledge acceptance, organizations’ importance and internal atmosphere as well as knowledge authority and relevance that have played a positive significant role in the knowledge transfer performance. In addition, our distance indicators showed that knowledge distance and knowledge transfer performance have significant negative correlations. Research limitations: This study is mainly based on a questionnaire survey of college students, which may limit the generalization of our research results. In addition, more resource types need be considered for further studies.Practical implications: Under network environment, scholarly communication performance based on knowledge transfer theory could greatly contribute to the enrichment of the contentof the knowledge transfer theory, and stretch out the range of the field. In addition, our result could help commercial scientific database providers to learn more about the users’ needs, which would not only benefit both scientific communities and content providers, but also promote scholarly communication effectively. Originality/value: Compared with existing researches which mainly emphasized the model construction of scholarly communication, our study focused the knowledge relevance during the scholarly communication and influence factors that impacted on the performance of knowledge acceptance under the network environment, which could provide helpful guides for further studies.

Writing as Painting： Creative Scholarly Writing From H616ne Cixous＇ Post-structuralism and Maurice Merleau-Ponty＇s Body Phenomenology

This paper deals with scholarly writing and a testing and experimental review of its related conventions. The author applies to her review of the subject a theoretical stimulus that returns to the starting point of H616ne Cixous＇ （2008） post-structuralism and Maurice Merleau-Ponty＇s （2012） phenomenology of the body. The author becomes open to meditation on the topic as a bodily soothsayer redeeming permission for creative scholarly writing using the intuitively associative method and style of writing which she has developed. The author suggests that a theoretical starting point located in post-structuralism and the phenomenology of the body offers the possibility to equate creative scholarly writing with painting. The aim of this paper is to start from post-structuralism and the phenomenology of the body and to conceive a new method of understanding and adapting creative scholarly writing, while the author allows herself to perceive and write in her intuitively associative style.

Recommendations for the Conduct,Reporting,Editing,and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals

I.ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONSA. Purpose of the Recommendations ICMJE developed these recommendations to review best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals, and to help authors, editors, and others involved in peer review and biomedical publishing create and distribute accurate, clear, reproducible, unbiased medical journal articles. The recommendations may also provide useful insights into the medical editing and publishing process for the media, patients and their families, and general readers.

Using Scholarly Big Data in Assessing Contribution of National Expertise to Climate Change Knowledge;Case Study: Egypt

Scholarly documents are generated on daily basis in varied formats. Google Scholar is one of the most popular open access web search engines that involves metadata of massive volume of varied scholarly literature that is generated autonomously and in high velocity. This means that Google Scholar data should be considered from Big Data perspective. Despite a growing literature on climate change in Egypt, there has never been a comprehensive survey of the literature produced by Egyptian researchers in the field. The paper in hand is intended to study and assess existing literature on climate change undertaken by Egyptian researchers available at Google Scholar. For this purpose, systematic mapping approach was utilized in this work. It was found that there were 189 research papers undertaken by Egyptian researchers on various climate change topics over a ten years period 2007-2017. Yet, about 33% of the produced literature was found to have been published in less reputable publications. Research papers undertaken by Egyptian researchers were found to be on the increase during this period. It was also found that the majority of the published research focused on specific topics such as agriculture and sea level rise, while disregarding a number of vital topics in the case of Egypt such as tourism, health and energy.

Book Review:Longhorned Woodboring Beetles(Coleoptera:Cerambycidae and Disteniidae):Primary Types of the Smithsonian Institution(edited by S.W.Lingafelter et al.,Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press,Washington D.C.,USA.2014,390 pages)

This book was written by five authors. I had met two of them, the first and third author. The first author, Steven Wayne Lingafelter, is a research entomologist with the Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, based at the Smithsonian Institution＇s National Museum of Natural History. He has specialized on longhomed woodboring beetles for almost three decades and currently specializes on the Neotropical fauna.

Advances in scholarly research of library science in China in 2008

Advances in many aspects of library science scholarly research were witnessed in China in year 2008.Based on literature review,10 notable aspects could be identified as follows:collection development policy of digital resources and evaluation,open access and institutional repository,digitization of Chinese rare books,knowledge organization theories,digital library standards and cooperation,Lib2.0and personalized services,total quality management and performance measurement,intellectual property issues related to digital library resources,the 'Land-Using Indicators for Public Library Construction' and 'Standards of Public Library Construction',review of and reflection on library development in the reform and opening-up era for the past 30 years.

Scholarly Retreat

Zouping was the first place to welcome U.S. scholars to do research into rural China shi Changxiang, 73, often looks through his old photographs of the various U.S.

Exploring the user platform preference and user interest preference of Chinese scholarly articles: A comparison based on usage metrics

With the rapid progress of networking and digitization,interactive data of users on various platforms have been recorded in real time.It has promoted the rise and development of usage metrics that provided new ideas and methods for users’academic communication behavior research and decision-making applications.

A Scholarly Director

TDWN Head Zhao: "How tired and good-for-nothing I am! To help ordinary people become richer, I got the money by a deal using my own son against my conscience. But now they think I’m a town traitor. High leaders demand that I build a big free market,

A Scholar of Dignity:Remembering Peter Luh

It was a shock and disbelief to learn of Peter's death last December.To me,he was so fit in his figure,so healthy in his lifestyle,so mild and mindful in his social behavior,and so devout in his religious belief,......,I had expected a long and happy life for him,and planned to join his 80th or even 100th birthday celebration.

Ranking academic institutions based on the productivity,impact,and quality of institutional scholars

Purpose:The quantitative rankings of over 55,000 institutions and their institutional programs are based on the individual rankings of approximately 30 million scholars determined by their productivity,impact,and quality.Design/methodology/approach:The institutional ranking process developed here considers all institutions in all countries and regions,thereby including those that are established,as well as those that are emerging in scholarly prowess.Rankings of individual scholars worldwide are first generated using the recently introduced,fully indexed ScholarGPS database.The rankings of individual scholars are extended here to determine the lifetime and last-five-year Top 20 rankings of academic institutions over all Fields of scholarly endeavor,in 14 individual Fields,in 177 Disciplines,and in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties.Rankings associated with five specific Fields(Medicine,Engineering&Computer Science,Life Sciences,Physical Sciences&Mathematics,and Social Sciences),and in two Disciplines(Chemistry,and Electrical&Computer Engineering)are presented as examples,and changes in the rankings over time are discussed.Findings:For the Fields considered here,the Top 20 institutional rankings in Medicine have undergone the least change(lifetime versus last five years),while the rankings in Engineering&Computer Science have exhibited significant change.The evolution of institutional rankings over time is largely attributed to the recent emergence of Chinese academic institutions,although this emergence is shown to be highly Field-and Discipline-dependent.Practical implementations:Existing rankings of academic institutions have:(i)often been restricted to pre-selected institutions,clouding the potential discovery of scholarly activity in emerging institutions and countries;(ii)considered only broad areas of research,limiting the ability of university leadership to act on the assessments in a concrete manner,or in contrast;(iii)have considered only a narrow area of research for comparison,diminishing the broader applicability and impact of the assessment.In general,existing institutional rankings depend on which institutions are included in the ranking process,which areas of research are considered,the breadth(or granularity)of the research areas of interest,and the methodologies used to define and quantify research performance.In contrast,the methods presented here can provide important data over a broad range of granularity to allow responsible individuals to gauge the performance of any institution from the Overall(all Fields)level,to the level of the Specialty.The methods may also assist identification of the root causes of shifts in institution rankings,and how these shifts vary across hundreds of thousands of Fields,Disciplines,and Specialties of scholarly endeavor.Originality/value:This study provides the first ranking of all academic institutions worldwide over Fields,Disciplines,and Specialties based on a unique methodology that quantifies the productivity,impact,and quality of individual scholars.

Talking Justice,the Chinese Way

Western legal scholars learn from China’s approach to justice at a seminar held at Oxford University.Mediation can work better than prosecution and prison.

科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较

为了探讨同行评议、影响计量学以及传统文献计量指标在科学评价中的有效性,本文选取F1000、Mendeley以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库,采用SPSS 19.0软件,将心理学与生态学的1,033篇论文的同行评议结果即F1000因子、Mendeley阅读统计、期刊影响因子,以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库中被引频次进行相关分析。结果表明:同行评议结果、传统引文分析指标以及以Mendeley为代表的影响计量指标具有低度正相关性,这意味着上述指标在科学评价中审视视角的不同以及数字时代科学评价的多维构成;心理学筛选数据中F1000因子与期刊影响因子相关度几近为0,这一结论进一步证实了期刊影响因子与单篇论文影响力的严重背离;生态学与心理学指标相关分析结果的不同折射出科学评价中自然科学、社会科学的差异。

从引文分析的角度比较Google Scholar与Web of Science的优势与不足

从期刊被引频次的角度出发,采取实证研究的方法,选取国际权威的引文数据库Web of Science和著名的搜索引擎Google Scholar,以《美国信息科学和技术学会杂志》为文献源,对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较和探讨。

不同类型选择性计量指标评价论文相关性研究——基于Mendeley、F1000和GoogleScholar三种学术社交网络工具

本文探索了一个新的情报学研究理论——选择性计量学，对选择性计量学的内涵、特性和国内外的相关研究进行了详细论述。选取Mendeley、F1000和GoogleSchol三种学术社交网络工具中的不同类型的选择性计量方法评价同一组论文的结果一致性进行了验证。研究结果表明Mendeley的读者人数指标与GoogleSchol的被引次数指标在论文评价结果的相关程度相对较高。

Web of Science和Google Scholar引文检索功能比较

文章从检索范围、检索方法、检索结果以及检索效果等方面对WebofScience和GoogleScholar的引文检索功能进行了比较分析,指出它们各自的优势和不足。

基于深度学习的学术搜索引擎——Semantic Scholar

[目的/意义]Alpha Go战胜李世石后,人工智能的研究与发展备受关注。在此之前不久,基于深度学习的Semantic Scholar免费学术搜索引擎的问世,也为科研工作者们搜索和筛选学术文献资源带来了新的体验。[方法 /过程]在介绍人工智能、机器学习和深度学习之间关系的基础上,介绍了Semantic Scholar的检索功能,重点就该引擎基于系统在理解文献内容基础上的学术影响力评价功能作了分析,并将Semantic Scholar与现行主流学术搜索引擎Google Scholar、Microsoft Academic、必应学术和百度学术进行比较研究。[结果/结论]Semantic Scholar通过机器学习可以使系统理解不同引用之间的影响力差异,提出了基于引用内容分析的学术影响力评价指标,但在信息来源、学科范围、检索功能和个性化服务功能方面还有待进一步完善。最后提出今后学术搜索引擎的发展展望。

Google Scholar、Scirus及PubMed检索功能对比研究

对比权威数据库PubMed及权威学术搜索工具Google Scholar、Scirus的检索功能,主要比较检索方法、检索结果、结果输出格式等方面的功能,利用10个题目的检索试验比较检索效果,并分析3种工具的各自特点。Google Scholar的收录范围最广;PubMed检索功能优于其它两种工具;在输出结果的格式方面,3种检索工具各具特色。