A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1627-1656

  Graziotin, Daniel ^a   Wang, Xiaofeng ^a   Abrahamsson, Pekka ^a  

^a FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN BOLZANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Information systems; Open access; Predatory publishers; Research; Software engineering; Systematic analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957542515     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1278-7     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. ACM. (2012). The 2012 ACM computing classification system. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://www.acm.org/about/class/2012.
2. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/372.abstract.
3. Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(1), 7–14. Retrieved from http://www.publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/147.
4. Bailey, C. (2008). Open access and libraries. Collection Management,32(3), 351–383. doi:10.1300/J105v32n03_07.
5. Beall, J. (2012a). Predatory publishers and opportunities for scholarly societies. In American Educational Research Association meeting, Washington, D.C. (Vol. 489, pp. 1–5). doi:10.1038/489179a.
6. Beall, J. (2012b). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature,489(7415), 179. doi:10.1038/489179a.
7. Beall, J. (2013a). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (2nd ed.). Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://perma.cc/LKY4-UWHH.
8. Beall, J. (2013b). OA journal stops publishing, deletes Website. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/BU36-WSWM.
9. Beall, J. (2013c). The open-access movement is not really about open access. tripleC, 11(2), 589–597.
10. Beall, J. (2013d). Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved January 28, 2014, from http://perma.cc/G45Q-88B5.
11. Björk, B. C. (2003). Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change. Information Research, 9(2), 170. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/X6GJ-R8FD.
12. Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine,10(1), 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.
13. Bjørnshauge, L., Brage, R., Brage, S., & Jørgensen, L. (2013a). DOAJ. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.doaj.org/.
14. Bjørnshauge, L., Brage, R., Brage, S., & Jørgensen, L. (2013b). DOAJ announces new selection criteria. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved August 06, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8CBJ-RFTN.
15. BOAI. (2002). Budapest open access initiative. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8BT3-KFNY.
16. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science (New York, N.Y.),342(6154), 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
17. Boisvert, R. F., & Davidson, J. W. (2013). Positioning ACM for an open access future. Communications of the ACM,56(2), 5. doi:10.1145/2408776.2408777.
18. Brown, P. O., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamothe, T., Eisen, M.,… Watson, L. (2003). Bethesda statement on open access publishing. Harvard Dash. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199.
19. Butler, D. (2012). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature,495(7442), 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a.
20. CLOCKSS. (2013). Contribute to CLOCKSS. CLOCKSS. Retrieved August 06, 2013, from http://perma.cc/BS77-P23N.
21. Crawford, S., & Stucki, L. (1990). Peer review and the changing research record. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,41(3), 223–228. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:3%3C223:AID-ASI14%3E3.0.CO;2-3.
22. CrossRef. (2013). 2013 CrossRef Deposit Fees. CrossRef. Retrieved May 25, 2013, from http://perma.cc/XY86-JXYW.
23. Davis, P. (2009). Open access publisher accepts nonsense manuscript for dollars. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://perma.cc/UDK7-9QSU.
24. DOAJ. (2013). About. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from http://perma.cc/BR9R-KWSC.
25. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Black sheep among open access journals and publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8SQU-JBLC.
26. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,22(2), 338–342.
27. Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in CS. Communications of the ACM,53(12), 129. doi:10.1145/1859204.1859234.
28. Graziotin, D. (2013, May 18). Comparison of open access software engineering and information systems journals. figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.704442.
29. Gumpenberger, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., & Gorraiz, J. (2012). On the impact of gold open access journals. Scientometrics,96(1), 221–238. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7.
30. Gutman, S. A. (2011). Copyright in the age of digital scholarship. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,65(2), 123–124. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000877.
31. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-oa articles in the same journals. DLib Magazine, 10(6), 2–6. doi:10.1045/june2004-harnad.
32. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y.,… Hilf, E. R. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36–40. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2007.12.005
33. Holmstrom, A. (2012). What happened to online articles published in K-theory (Springer journal)? Mathoverflow. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/46VC-46WG.
34. Houghton, J. W., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 28(1), 41–54. doi:10.1080/08109021003676359.
35. IEEE. (2013). IEEE open-article processing charges. Institute of Electrical and Electornics Engineers. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://perma.cc/LZ56-ARGG.
36. ISSN. (2013). ISSN and electronic publications. ISSN International Centre. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/R2T3-4Z56.
37. Karen, C. (2013). Predatory publishers. Library Journal. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/PZZ9-KMKN.
38. Koehler, W. (2002). Web page change and persistence? A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(2), 162–171. doi:10.1002/asi.10018.
39. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. In O. Neurath (Ed.), Philosophical review (Vol. II, p. 210). London: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1119/1.1969660.
40. Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE,6(6), e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961.
41. Laika Spoetnik, J. (pseudonym). (2011). Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory, open-access publishers. Laika’s MedLibLog.
42. Langston, M., & Tyler, J. (2004). Linking to journal articles in an online teaching environment: The persistent link, DOI, and OpenURL. The Internet and Higher Education,7(1), 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.004.
43. Leubsdorf, C. (2012). Annotum: Launching a peer-reviewed journal online for free. Learned Publishing,25(2), 8. doi:10.1087/20120204.
44. Ley, M. (2002). The DBLP computer science bibliography: Evolution, research issues, perspectives. In 9th international symposium on string processing and information retrieval (SPIRE 2013) (Vol. 2476, pp. 1–10). Lisbon, Portugal: Springer, Berlin. doi:10.1007/3-540-45735-6.
45. Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and use. Information Processing and Management,42(2), 583–592. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2004.12.002.
46. Maniatis, P., Roussopoulos, M., Giuli, T. J., Rosenthal, D. S. H., & Baker, M. (2005). The LOCKSS peer-to-peer digital preservation system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,23(1), 2–50. doi:10.1145/1047915.1047917.
47. Mattern, F. (2008). Bibliometric evaluation of computer science—Problems and pitfalls. In European computer science summit (Vol. 2008, p. 6). Zurich, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.inf.ethz.ch/department/IS/vs/publ/slides/Bibliometry-ECSS-Summit-08.pdf.
48. Max Planck Society. (2003). Berlin declaration. Open Access at the Max Planck Society. doi:10.1353/hrq.2005.0002.
49. Molloy, J. C. (2011). The open knowledge foundation: Open data means better science. PLoS Biology,9(12), e1001195. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195.
50. Mosallahnezhad, R. (2007). REMOVED: Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms. Applied Mathematics and Computation. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011.
51. Navidi, W. (2010). Statistics for engineers and scientists. Education (3rd ed., Vol. 6). McGraw-Hill. doi:10.2307/2288012.
52. OASPA. (2013). Code of conduct. Open access scholarly publishers association. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/F874-Z72N.
53. Parks, R. P. (2002). The Faustian grip of academic publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology,9(3), 317–335. doi:10.1080/1350178022000015122.
54. Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature,493(7431), 159. doi:10.1038/493159a.
55. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/D7YM-CCGB.
56. Pringle, J. (2013). Do Open Access journals have impact? Nature Web focus: Access to the literature. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from http://perma.cc/G26H-RP56.
57. Regazzi, J. (2004). The shifting sands of open access publishing, a publisher’s view. Serials Review,30(4), 275–280. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.010.
58. Reich, V., & Rosenthal, D. (2004). Preserving today’s scientific record for tomorrow. BMJ (Clinical research ed.),328(7431), 61–62. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7431.61.
59. Schroter, S., & Tite, L. (2006). Open access publishing and author-pays business models: A survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,99(3), 141–148. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.3.141.
60. Schroter, S., Tite, L., & Smith, R. (2005). Perceptions of open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors. BMJ (Clinical research ed.),330(7494), 756. doi:10.1136/bmj.38359.695220.82.
61. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ,314(7079), 497. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
62. SHERPA. (2002). RoMEO—Search—Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. SHERPA Services based at the University of Nottingham. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php.
63. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ,318(7175), 4–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
64. Sol, H. G. (1983). A feature analysis of information systems design methodologies: Methodological considerations. In Information Systems design methodologies: A feature analysis (pp. 1–7).
65. Song, X., & Osterweil, L. J. (1992). Toward objective, systematic design-method comparisons. IEEE Software,9(3), 43–53. doi:10.1109/52.136166.
66. Sotudeh, H., & Horri, A. (2007). Tracking open access journals evolution: Some considerations in open access data collection validation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(11), 1578–1585. doi:10.1002/asi.20639.
67. Stribling, J., Krohn, M., & Aguayo, D. (2005). SCIgen—An automatic CS paper generator. PDOS Research. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/.
68. Suber, P. (2008). Gratis and libre open access. SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://perma.cc/AD8E8DZE.
69. Suber, P. (2009). Timeline of the open access movement. Open Access Directory. Retrieved July 29, 2013, from http://perma.cc/VYT6-5DWB.
70. Suber, P. (2012). Open Access (1st ed., pp. 1–255). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
71. Swoger, B. (2013). It’s not about predators, it’s about journal quality. Scientific American Blogs. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/SCY9-BQV8.
72. Taylor, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing a database of “predatory OA journals.” Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/629G-VBGS.
73. Van Noorden, R. (2012). Journal offers flat fee for “all you can publish”. Nature,486(7402), 166. doi:10.1038/486166a.
74. Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature,495(7442), 426–429. doi:10.1038/495426a.
75. Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Predatory scholarly publishing. Communications of the ACM,55(7), 5. doi:10.1145/2209249.2209250.
76. Vision, T. J. (2010). Open data and the social contract of scientific publishing. BioScience,60(5), 330–331. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.5.2.
77. Wainer, J., Billa, C., & Goldenstein, S. (2011). Invisible work in standard bibliometric evaluation of computer science. Communications of the ACM,54(5), 141. doi:10.1145/1941487.1941517.
78. Willinsky, J. (2005). Open journal systems: An example of open source software for journal management and publishing. Library Hi Tech,23(4), 504–519. doi:10.1108/07378830510636300.
79. Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle. electronic publishing (1st ed., Vol. 85, pp. 227–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Worlock, K. (2013). The pros and cons of open access. Nature Web Focus: Access to the Literature. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from http://perma.cc/464S-3Z8K.
81. Young, B. (1988). International standard serial numbers. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 1(2), 48–50. doi:10.1629/010248.