Arab authors’ perceptions about the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used in Emerald’s library and information science journals

New Library World

Volumn 117, Issue 7-8, 2016, Pages 414-439

  Mansour, Essam ^a  

^a SOUTH VALLEY UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Arab authors; Arab world; Emerald database; Library per cent 26 information science journals; Peer review; Scholarly communication productivity collaboration; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84977630447     PISSN: 03074803     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/NLW-01-2016-0007     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ash, D.S. (2009), ASHP’s Management Pearls, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), Bethesda, MD.
2. Baggs, J., Broome, M., Dougherty, M., Freda, M. and Kearney, M. (2008), “Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 131-138.
3. Bates, M.J. and Maack, M.N. (Eds) (2010), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Vols 1/7, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
4. Bentley, P. (2011), “Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
5. Bjork, C. and Solomon, D. (2013), “The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals Bo-Christer”, available at: http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf (accessed 30 July 2015).
6. Blake, G. and Bly, R. (2000), Elements of Technical Writing, Longman, London.
7. Bourke-Waite, A. (2015), “Innovations in scholarly peer review at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan”, Insights, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 93-99.
8. British Ecological Society (2013), “A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution”, available at: www.dulvy.com/uploads/2/1/0/4/21048414/besguidetopeerreviewing.pdf (accessed 15 June 2014).
9. Elsevier (2009), “Peer review survey 2009: preliminary findings”, available at: www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/peer-review-survey-2009-preliminary-findings# (accessed 1 July 2015).
10. Evans, J. and Mathur, A. (2005), “The value of online surveys”, Internet Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
11. Fidel, R. (2008), “Are we there yet?: mixed methods research in library and information science”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 30, pp. 265-272.
12. Fraley, R.C. (2004), How to Conduct Behavioural Research Over the Internet, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
13. Garson, L. (2013), “Electronic peer review system reduces publication time”, Sci-Tech News, Vol. 49 No. 4, Article 3, available at: http://jdc.jefferson.edu/scitechnews/vol49/iss4/3 (accessed 13 June 2014).
14. Gibson, M., Spong, C.Y., Simonsen, S.E., Martin, S. and Scott, J.R. (2008), “Author perception of peer review”, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 112 No. 3, pp. 646-652.
15. Hames, I. (2007), Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
16. Hargittai, E. (2004), “Co-authorships in academia”, available at: http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/05/co-authorships-in-academia (accessed 30 June 2014).
17. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011), “Peer review in scientific publications”, available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf (accessed 17 June 2015).
18. Jones, M. and Roberts, R. (2005), “International publishing patterns: an investigation of leading UK and US accounting and finance journals “, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 1107-1140.
19. Joswick, K. (1999), “Article publication patterns of academic librarians: an Illinois case study”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 340-349.
20. Kapp, C. and Albertyn, R. (2008), “Accepted or rejected: editors’ perspectives on common errors of authors”, Acta Academica, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 270-288.
21. Lau, Y. (2014), “The challenges of getting your research published when English is not your first language”, available at: http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/11/24/the-challenges-of-getting-your-research-published-when-english-is-not-your-first-language (accessed 27 February 2016).
22. McGrail, M.R., Rickardb, C. and Jonesa, R. (2006), “Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
23. Ramsden, P. (1994), “Describing and explaining research productivity”, Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 207-226.
24. Research Information Network (CIC). (2015), “Scholarly communication and peer review: the current landscape and future trends”, available at: www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059003.pdf (accessed 20 October 2015).
25. Rowlands, I. and Olivieri, R. (2006), “Journal and scientific productivity: a case study in immunology and microbiology”, available at: file:///C:/Users/Fujitsu/Downloads/Rowland_Olivieri_summary_paper.pdf (accessed 15 October 2015).
26. Sense About Science (2004), “Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas: discussion paper from a working party on equipping the public with an understanding of peer review”, available at: www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf (accessed 11 May 2015).
27. Shattell, M., Chinn, P., Thomas, S. and Cowling, W. (2010), “Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-65.
28. Svernstrom, M. (2014), “What is an academic/scholarly article?”, available at: www.kau.se/en/library/search/help-searching/faq/what-is-academicscholarly-article (accessed 15 October 2015).
29. Teodorescu, D. (2000), “Correlates of faculty publication productivity: a cross-national analysis”, Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 201-222.
30. Thomson Reuters (2010), “Increasing the quality and timeliness of scholarly peer review”, available at: http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/peerreviewwhitepaper.pdf (accessed 15 January 2015).
31. Thomson Reuters (2015), “Web of science: the complete citation connection”, available at: http://wokinfo.com/citationconnection/realfacts/#regional (accessed 11 March 2015).
32. Tort, A., Targino, Z. and Amaral, O. (2012), “Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 7 No, pp. 12.
33. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2015), “Introduction to open access”, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002319/231920E.pdf (accessed 11 May 2015).
34. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2016), “World Arabic language day”, available at: www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-arabic-language-day (accessed 15 October 2015).
35. Wagers, S. (2013), “20 benefits of collaboration as a researcher you cannot afford to ignore”, available at: www.assembledchaos.com/20-benefits-of-collaboration-as-a-researcher-you-cannot-afford-to-ignore/ (accessed 30 October 2014).
36. Ware, M. (2013), Peer Review: An Introduction and Guide, Publishing Research Consortium, Bristol.
37. Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2015), “The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing celebrating the 350th anniversary of journal publishing”, available at: www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 20 October 2015).
38. Ware, M. and Monkman, M. (2008), “Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study”, Publishing Research Consortium”, available at: file:///C:/Users/Fujitsu/Downloads/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final(1).pdf (accessed 20 January 2015).
39. Weber, E., Katz, P., Waeckerle, J. and Callaham, M. (2002), “Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction”, JAMA, Vol. 287 No. 21, pp. 2790-2793.
40. World Bank (2016), “Arab world”, available at: http://data.worldbank.org/region/ARB (accessed 3 February 2016).
41. Wyse, S. (2012), “Advantages and disadvantages of surveys”, available at: www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-surveys (accessed 21 February 2015).
42. Young, S. (2003), “Peer review of manuscripts: theory and practice”, Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 327-330.
43. Zakaria, M. (2015), “Scholarly productivity of Arab librarians in library and information science journals from 1981 to 2010: an analytical study”, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 70-79.
44. Ecological Society (2013), “A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution”, available at: www.dulvy.com/uploads/2/1/0/4/21048414/besguidetopeerreviewing.pdf (accessed 20 June 2014).