Assessing Scientometrics Based on Paid and Free-to-Publish Journals
Kadir Uludaga PhD
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Mental Health Center, Shanghai, China
Issue 1, Volume 1
Corresponding author email:kadiruludag@mails.ucas.ac.cn
phone:+86 18401653162
Assessing Scientometrics Based on Paid and Free-to-Publish Journals
Abstract
Objective: This manuscript aims to compare scientometric indicators between paid journals and non-paid journals, with a focus on assessing the differences in citation patterns. It enables us to evaluate achievements from various viewpoints.
Methods: A brief literature search was conducted across multiple databases to identify relevant studies comparing scientometrics in paid and non-paid journals. Moreover, we will elucidate an alternative approach to calculating the impact factor. Specifically, we will generate distinct impact factors based on the funding option of journals, providing a more detailed analysis. It is important to note that we did not employ systematic review methods.
Conclusion: The comparison of scientometrics between paid and non-paid journals highlights distinct patterns in citation counts, publication impact, and collaboration networks. Separate impact factors may enable us to evaluate achievements from various viewpoints. This approach enables us to assess the achievements of promising researchers who do not have access to funding, thus allowing for a more comprehensive evaluation of their success. Subsequent research endeavors can also compute the journal impact factor based on the publisher.
Keywords: scientometrics, open access journal, paid journal, citation metrics, sciencemetrics, academic metrics, journal funding
Abbreviations: APC, article processing charge
- Introduction
Scientometrics entails examining the quantitative elements of the scientific process, treating it as a system of communication (Mingers & Leydesdorff, 2015). Quality evaluations are present throughout the entire scientific system, spanning from requests for funding to advancements in career positions, awards, and job security. These evaluations can cover a wide range of scientific contributions, including the work of individual researchers, entire departments or institutes (Bornmann & Leydesdorff, 2014).
Furthermore, there’s a notable gap in scientometrics literature regarding the influence of funding on research outputs and impact. This presents a significant opportunity for further exploration and understanding.
Assessing scientometrics based on paid and non-paid journals holds significance for various reasons:
- Transparency and Accountability: The evaluation of research impact and productivity in both paid and non-paid journals fosters transparency and accountability.
- Equity and Accessibility: Assessing the impact of research from both paid and non-paid journals ensures a more inclusive assessment of scholarly accomplishments.
- Evaluation of Quality: Comparing scientometrics between paid and non-paid journals provides insights into quality of research published in different types of journals. In simple terms, open access enables us to comprehend researchers from impoverished nations who lack the financial means to cover the costs associated with accessing research materials.
Thus, our goal of study was to compare scientometrics according to paid and open access journals as it enables us to evaluate achievements from various viewpoints.
- Methods
To evaluate it comprehensively, we will categorize the assessment into two groups: paid journals and non-paid journals. Subsequently, we will compute the H-index for both the paid and non-paid journal groups.
In our analysis, we should consider both the time of publication and the funding status of the journal in that period, as it is important to acknowledge that journals may change their funding option over time. By accounting for these factors, we aim to provide a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the impact and productivity of research published in different journals.
2.1. Paid versus non-paid journal article rate
The paid versus non-paid journal article rate refers to the proportion or percentage of articles published in academic journals that require payment (paid journals) compared to those that are freely accessible without any cost to the reader (non-paid journals). This rate indicates the prevalence of different publishing models and reflects the extent to which scholarly research is available behind paywalls or accessible to a wider audience through open access.
2.2. Open access versus partially open access journal article rate
The “open access versus partially open access journal article rate” refers to the comparison or measurement of the frequency or proportion of articles published in fully open access journals versus those published in partially open access journals. It assesses the extent to which research articles are freely available to the public versus being accessible only through a subscription or payment for certain articles within a journal.
2.3. Pricing between high-cost and low-cost open access options
When it comes to high-cost open access options, authors are obliged to pay significant fees to have their articles published and accessible to readers free of charge. The amount of these fees can vary greatly based on the journal’s reputation within the academic community.
On the other hand, low-cost open access options provide more affordable article processing charges (APCs), ensuring that researchers with limited funding can still publish their work in open access journals. These journals strive to minimize financial obstacles and facilitate broader dissemination of research without imposing excessive fees on authors.
3.Results and Discussion
In our manuscript, we have mentioned that it is feasible to calculate the H-index based on the funding option of journals. Notably, our manuscript represents the first instance where such calculations are mentioned.
3.1. Excessive Publication fee
Excessive publication fees denote the elevated expenses authors face when publishing their research in academic journals. These fees are increasingly worrisome among scholars because they present substantial obstacles, especially for researchers affiliated with institutions lacking adequate resources or in developing countries.
In the present time, the process of publishing research does not require significant financial resources. However, it has been observed that some journals have a strong inclination towards excessively charging individuals for publication. These journals engage in daily publication of papers, enabling them to generate substantial profits. Furthermore, there is a lack of transparent explanation regarding how the money generated from publishing fees is utilized by these journals. The financial details and allocation of funds remain unclear, raising concerns about the accountability and proper utilization of the fees paid by authors.
3.2. Conclusion
The comparison of scientometrics between paid and non-paid journals highlights distinct patterns in citation counts, publication impact, and collaboration networks. Separate impact factors may enable us to evaluate achievements from various viewpoints.
3.3. Limitations:
Our manuscript is not a systematic review. To create a clearer distinction, we can exclude journals that charge only nominal fees and instead focus on categorizing journals as paid if they impose excessive fees.
Also, some organizations can be found to verify non-profit journals (e.g., DOAJ).
3.4. Suggestions for further Studies:
Further studies can also create other metrics that help us to assess academic productivity. Subsequent research endeavors can also compute the journal impact factor based on the publisher (e.g., Elsevier H-index, Taylor Francis H-index, Dove Medical Press H-index). Additional research could utilize systematic review methodologies to investigate it further. It is advisable for universities to avoid implementing stringent criteria, such as the H-index, for recruitment purposes.
References:
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO reports, 15(12), 1228-1232.
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1-19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
Funding: There is no funding associated with this study.
Competing interests: No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.
Ethical approval: Not required.
Patient Consent: Not required.
Acknowledgment: Not required.
Author Statement: K.U. wrote the manuscript and is the only author.