Back to the Beginning - The Journal is Dead, Long Live Science

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 669-679

  Nwagwu, Williams E ^a,b,c   Onyancha, Bosire ^b  

^a Council for the Development of Social Research in Africa ^*  (Senegal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA   (South Africa)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN   (Nigeria)

Author keywords

Academic journal; Open access; Peer review; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942553867     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Acharya A., Verstak A., Suzuki H., Henderson S., Lakhiaev H., Lin C.C.Y., et al. Rise of the rest: The growing impact of non-elite journals - Originally published on Google scholar Available at, (Accessed 4 November 2014). http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.2217.pdf.
2. Adonis B.T.S. The new ADONIS. Serials 1992, November, 5(3).
3. Ahonen P.P., Jhelt M., Kaukoen E., Vuolanto P. Internationalisation of Finnish research 2009, Academy of Finland, Finland.
4. Allen W.E. Repositories for scientific publications. Science 1922, August, 56:197-198.
5. Altman D.G., Furberg C.D., Grimshaw J.M., Shanahan D.R. Linked publications from a single trial: A thread of evidence Available at, (accessed 13 May 2015). http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/15/1/369.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science Interim Committee on the Social Aspects of Science, preliminary report. Science 1957, 125:143-147.
7. Avrin L. Scribes, script and books: The book arts from antiquity to the renaissance 1950, Clarenda Company, NY.
8. Bailey C.W. Scholarly electronic publishing on the internet and the NII: Charting possible futures. Serials Review 1994, 20(3):7-16.
9. Barnes B. Interests and the growth of knowledge 1977, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
10. Bernal J.D. Preliminary analysis of pilot questionnaire on the use of scientific literature. in Proceedings of the Royal Society scientific information conference 1948, Royal Society, London.
11. Bertamini M., Munafo M. Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:67-71.
12. Bishop M. How long should a scientific research report be? Available at, (accessed 12 May 2015). http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/how-long-does-scientific-paper-need-to.html.
13. Blake G., Bly R.W. The elements of technical writing 1993, Macmillan Publishers.
14. Bloor D. Knowledge and social imagery 1976, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
15. Bluhm R.K. Henry Oldenburg FRS (c1615-1677). Notes and Records of the Royal Society 1960, 15:126-183. (Available at http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/15/1/183 (accessed 12 January 2015)).
16. Borchardt R.C. Institutional altmetrics and academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly 2013, 25(2):14-19.
17. Bornmann L. Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports 2012, 13(8):673-676.
18. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):895-903.
19. Bornmann L. Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):935-950.
20. Bradford S.C. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering 1934, 137(26):85.
21. Brandeis J. International News Service v. The Associated Press No. 221 Supreme Court of the United States 248 U.S. 215; 63 L. Ed. 211; 39 S. Ct. 68; 2 A.L.R. 293 Available at, (accessed on June 2 2015). http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/LegalRealism/1918ins3.htm.
22. Brown A. J. D. Bernal: The sage of science 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23. Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:5-7.
24. Chamberlain S. Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly 2013, 25(2):4-13.
25. Christensen C.M. Innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail 2000, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 2nd ed.
26. Claussen J.E., Cooney P.B., Defilippi J.M., Fox S.G., Glaser S.M., Hawkes E., et al. Science communication in a digital age: Social media and the American Fisheries Society. Fisheries 2013, 38(8):359-362.
27. Coblans H. New methods and techniques for communicating science. UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries 1957, 11:154-175.
28. Cronin B. The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards III 2005, Scarecrew Press.
29. Cronin B. The evolving indicator space (iSpace). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(8):1523-1525.
30. Darwin C. Autobiography. The life and letters of Charles Darwin 1919, Appleton, New York. F. Darwin (Ed.).
31. Education Policy Analysis Archives Available:, (accessed 14 September 2012). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/.
32. Einatien E. The printing press as an agent of change 1979, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Eisen M. The past, present and future of scholarly publishing. It is NOT junk Available at, (accessed March 2015). http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1346.
34. Fine A. Unnatural attitudes: Realist and instrumentalist attachments to science. Mind 1986, XCV:149-179.
35. Foucoult M. The discourse on language. The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language 1979, Pantheon Books, New York. M. Foucault (Ed.).
36. Galison P. How experiments end 1987, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
37. The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power 1996, Stanford University Press, Stanford. P. Galison, D. Stump (Eds.).
38. Galloway L.M., Pease J.L., Rauh A.E. Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries 2013, 32(4):335-345.
39. Garfield E. Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1999, 161(8):979-980.
40. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of American Medical Association 2006, 295(1):90-93.
41. Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology 1967, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
42. Ginsparg P. Winners and losers in the Global Research Village. Paper presented at the Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science 1996, February 19-23, UNESCO HQ, Paris, (Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/pg96unesco.html (accessed 02/1/2015)).
43. Ginsparg P. Winners and losers in the Global Research Village. The Serials Librarian 1997, 30(3-4):83-95. 10.1300/J123v30n03_13.
44. Greenhow C., Gleason B. Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology 2014, 45(3):392-402.
45. Guédon J. In Oldenburg's long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing 2001, ARL, Washington DC.
46. Hakala J. Internationalisation of science: Views of the scientific elite in Finland? 11(1) Available at, (accessed 12 February 2015). http://www.sciencetechnologystudies.org/v11n1/Hakala.
47. Harnad S. Psychophysical and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: A critical overview. Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition 1987, Cambridge University Press, New York. S. Harnad (Ed.).
48. Harnad S. Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry. Psychological Science 1990, 1:342-343.
49. Harnad S. Interactive publication: Extending the American Physical Society's discipline-specific model for electronic publishing. Serials Review 1992, 18(1-2):58-61.
50. Harnad S. The subversive proposal. Presentation at the Network Services Conference (NSC) 1994, NSC, London.
51. Harnad S. Implementing peer review on the net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. Scholarly publication: The electronic frontier 1996, MIT Press. R. Peek, G. Newby (Eds.).
52. Harnad S. The Post Gutenberg Open Access Journal. The Future of the Academic Journal 2009, Chandos, NY. B. Cope, A. Phillips (Eds.).
53. Haslam N. Bite-size science: Relative impact of short article formats. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2010, 5(3):263-264.
54. Hendler J. Reinventing academic publishing - Part 1. IEEE Intelligent Systems 2007, 22(5). 10.1109/MIS.2007.93.
55. Hendler J. Reinventing academic publishing - Part 3. IEEE Intelligent Systems 2008, 23(1):2-3.
56. Hiller R. Highly concentrated scientific productivity and its impact on Africa Available at, (accessed 2 March 2015). http://www.cpgr.org.za/1-concentration-scientific-productivity-means-researchers-african-continent/.
57. Hswe P., Holt A. NSF data sharing policy 2015, (Blog), Association of Research Libraries, (Available at http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/e-research/data-access-management-and-sharing/nsf-data-sharing-policy#.VSz-eZMatck (accessed 14 April 2015).
58. Hubbard S.C., McVeigh M.E. Casting a wide net: The journal impact factor numerator. Learned Publishing 2011, 24(2):133-137.
59. Ioannidis J.P., Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PloS One 2014, 9(7):e101698.
60. Jange S., Kademani B.S. Metamorphosis of the scientific journal: Past, present and future. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 1999, 4(1):61-69.
61. Katzen M.F. The Changing Appearance of Research Journals in Science and Technology: an Analysis and A Case Study. Development of Scientific Publication in Europe 1980, Elsevier Science Publishers., Amsterdam. A.J. Meadows (Ed.).
62. Kingsley D. The journal is dead, long live the journal. On the Horizon 2007, 15(4):211-221.
63. Knorr-Cetina K.D. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science 1981, Pergamum Press, Oxford.
64. Kolata G. Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too), The New York Times 2013, April 7, Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?_r=2&, accessed April 2013.
65. Kress G. Literacy in the new media age 2003, Rutledge, London.
66. Kyvik S., Larsen I.M. The exchange of knowledge. A small country in the international research community. Science Communication 1997, 18(3):238-264.
67. Latour B., Woolger S. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts 1979, Sage, Beverly Hills California.
68. Laudan L. The pseudo-science of science?. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1981, 11:173-198.
69. Lawrence P. The politics of publication. Nature 2003, 422:259-262.
70. Leclerc M., Gagné J. International scientific cooperation: The continentalization of science. Scientometrics 1994, 31(3):261-292.
71. Ledgerwood A., Sherman J. Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(1):60-66. 10.1177/1745691611427304.
72. Lehmann S., Jackson A.D., Lautrup B.E. Measures for measures. Nature 2006, 444:1003-1010.
73. Lindenbaum P. Authors and publishers in the late seventeenth century: New evidence on their relations. The Library 2002, 17(3):250-269.
74. Loeweinstein J. The script in the marketplace. Representations 1988, 12(fall 1985):101-114.
75. Lotka A.J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences 1926, 16:317-323.
76. Lozano G.A., Larivière V., Gingras Y. The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citation rates in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(4):2140-2145.
77. Marcus A., Oransky I. Retractions are coming thick and fast: It's time for publishers to act 2014, July 14, The Guardian.com, (12.47 BST.).
78. Mark R. The author as proprietor: Donaldson V. Becket and the genealogy of modern authorship. Representations 23 (1988) 1993, Harvard University Press, London.
79. Maynard T. Saint Benedict and his monks 1956, Staples Press, NY.
80. McKiernan G. arXiv.org: The Los Alamos National Laboratory E-print server. The International Journal on Grey Literature 2000, 1(3):127-138. 10.1108/14666180010345564.
81. McVeigh M.E., Mann S.J. The journal impact factor denominator. Journal of American Medical Association 2009, 302(10):1107-1109.
82. Meadows A.J. Access to the results of scientific research: Developments in Victorian Britain. Development of science publishing in Europe 1980, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
83. Merton R.K. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations 1992, University of Chicago Press, USA.
84. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics 2013, 97(2):383-395.
85. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 10.1002/asi.23071.
86. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley User Categories 1 Available at, (accessed 10 January 2015). http://www.academia.edu/6298635/Who_Reads_Research_Articles_An_Altmetrics_Analysis_of_Mendeley_User_Categorie.
87. Morrison H. Sustaining the knowledge commons (open access scholarship). The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics 2014, (Available at http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2014/06/sustaining-knowledge-commons-open.html (Accessed 23 February 2015)).
88. Nwagwu W.E. Cybernating the academe: Centralised scholarly ranking and visibility of scholars in the developed world. Journal of Information Science 2007, 36(2):228-241.
89. Odlyzko A.M. Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1995, 42(1):71-122.
90. Odlyzko A. The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing 2001, 15(1):7-19.
91. Oldenburg H. Epistle dedicatory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1665, (Available at 1: 0-0, accessed 12 January 2015). 10.1098/rstl.1665.0001.
92. Onburn C.B. The place of the journal in the scholarly communication system. Library Resources and Technical Services 1984, 28:315-324.
93. Onyancha B.O. Are Altmetrics a panacea for citation delays? A critical view of the journey of the citing article through the research and impact cycles. Presented at Department of Information Studies (University of Zululand) Conference, 3-5 September 2014 2014.
94. Paul H. Assessing the influence of computer-assisted legal research: A study of California supreme court opinions. Library staff publications, paper 5 Available at, (accessed 22 February 2015). http://cholarship.law.wm.edu/libpubs/.
95. Phelps R.H., Herling J.P. Alternative to the scientific periodical. UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries 1959, 14:69-71.
96. Piternick A.B. Attempts to find alternatives to the scientific journal: A brief review. Journal of Academic Librarianship 1989, 15(5):260-266.
97. Piternick A.B. Electronic serials: Realistic or unrealistic solution to the journal "crisis?". Serials Librarian 1991, 21(2/3):15-31.
98. PLOS ONE journal information. Available at Plosone.org (Retrieved on 2015-05-12).
99. Price E. A comparative communication discourse analysis examination of the economic crisis of 1929 and the mortgage crisis of 2008 through the analysis of mainstream and alternative media discourses. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts 2008, Arizona State University, USA.
100. Priem J., Hemminger B.M. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday 2010, 15(7).
101. Priem P., Hemminger B.M. Decoupling the scholarly journal (2012). Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 2012, 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019.
102. Ramsden J.J. Impact factor - A critique. Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry 2009, 9:139-140.
103. Renear A.H., Palmer C.L. Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science (New York, N.Y.) 2009, 325(5942):828-832. (PMID: 19679805.).
104. Roosendaal H.E., Guerts P.A. Forces and functions in scientific communication: An analysis of their interplay. Proceedings of CRISP 97 (Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics) 1998, (Available at http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/CRISP97/roosendaal.html (accessed 14 June 2014)).
105. Russell J.M., Rousseau R. Bibliometrics and institutional evaluation. Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO 2002, 42-64. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford. R. Arvantis (Ed.).
106. Savenije B. New competitors for the publishers: The cobbler and his last. Electronic Library 1997, 15(6):431-435.
107. Schaffner A.C. The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries 1994, 13(4):239-247.
108. Schott T. Scientific research in Sweden: Orientation toward the American Centre and embeddedness in Nordic and European environments. Science Studies 1992, 5(2):14-27.
109. Shanahan D. Why perpetuate a 300-year-old anachronism? Reincarnating the research article into a 'living document' Available at, (accessed 13 May 2015). http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/05/13/reincarnating-the-research-article-into-a-living-document/.
110. Shapin S. The sociology of science. History of Science 1982, 20:157-211.
111. Shapin S. The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. ISIS 1988, 79:373-404.
112. Sharrock W., Anderson R.J. The ethnomethodologists 1986, Tavistock Publications, London.
113. Sheckman R. How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian 2013, 9:12. (Monday 9 December 2013 19.30 GM).
114. A century of chemistry: The role of chemists and the American Chemical Society 1976, ACS, Washington, D.C. H. Skolnik, K.M. Reese (Eds.).
115. Smith J.W.T. The deconstructed journal - A new model from academic publishing. Learned Publishing 1999, 12(2):79-91.
116. Solomon D.J. Digital distribution of academic journals and its impact on scholarly communication: Looking back after 20years. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2013, 39(1):23-28.
117. Sorlin P. Mass-media 1994, Routledge, London.
118. Stanek K.Z. How long should an astronomical paper be to increase its impact? 2008, (arXiv arXiv: 0809.0692v1.).
119. Stapel D.A., Lindenberg S. Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination. Science 2011, (Available at, accessed 12 June 2014). 10.1126/science.1201068.
120. Subramanyam K. Scientific and technical information resources 1981, Marcell-Dekker, New York.
121. Suber P. Ensuring open access for publicly funded research BMJ 2012 2012, 345. (Published 08 August 2012) BMJ 345, 2012, e5184. 10.1136/bmj.e5184.
122. Suzuki H. Scholar metrics released Available at, (accessed 14 July 2014). http://googlescholar.blogspot.com/2014/06/2014-scholar-metrics-released.html.
123. Swinnerton-Dyer P. A system of electronic journals for the United Kingdom. Serials 1992, 5(3):33-35.
124. Thurston H. Early astronomy 1994, Springer, New York.
125. Van de Sompel H. Rethinking scholarly communication: Building the system that scholars deserve. DLib 2004, September, 10.1045/ september2004-vandesompe.
126. Van Raan A.F.J. Science as an international enterprise. Science and Public Policy 1997, 24(5):290-300.
127. Vannevar B. As we may think Available at, (accessed on 4 January 2015). http://totalrecallbook.com/storage/As%20We%20May%20Think%20Vannevar%20Bush%20450910.pdf.
128. Willinsky J. The access principle - the case for open access to research - pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets and scholarship 2006, MIT Press, Cambridge.
129. Wouters P., Costas R. Users, narcissism and control tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century 2012, SURF Foundation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
130. Ziman J. Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.