Editor Seminar in Journal Publishing

Transcription

1 Editor Seminar in Journal Publishing Attaining Excellence in Scholarly Communication Presented by: Rose Olthof, Director Strategy and Journal Services, Science & Technology Journals

2 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of Scientific Journals 2

3 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing The start of journal publishing The role of publishing The journal workflow Elsevier in publishing Trends in Scholarly Communication 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals 3

4 Scientific communication: a long time ago Informal Local Minimal archive 4

5 Henry Oldenburg ( ) Born in Germany Resident in London from 1652 Indefatigable correspondent with major scientists of his day Appointed (joint) Secretary to the Royal Society in 1663 Created (as editor and commercial publisher) the first scientific journal in 1665 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 5

6 Journal makes its entry Significant improvement in scientific communication: Registration Validation Dissemination Archive 6

7 Differentiation/Fragmentation 1665 First journals natural philosophy 1800 hundred journals 1900 thousand journals mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, medicine 2000s 23 thousand journals many hundreds of specialized fields 7

8 Relationship of Journals & Researcher Growth 1.6 US r&d workers Index (1981=1.00) 1.2 journals articles More researchers more journals 8

9 The long way from research to public acceptance Create Discuss & revisit Criticism Formal public evaluation Formal confirmation Acceptance & integration Private Co-workers Invisible college Speciality Discipline Public 1st draft Draft mss research OBSERVATION Draft for comment Seminar/workshop/conference COMMUNICATION Peer reviewed paper in a journal CRITICAL EVALUATION monograph reference work ACCEPTANCE textbook AS FACT 9 Science journalism prizes history

10 What do modern researchers want as authors? Registration Register a discovery as theirs and made by them on a certain date Assert ownership and achieve priority Validation Get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality stamped by publication in a journal of known quality Establish a reputation, and get reward Dissemination Let their peers know what they have done Attract recognition and collaboration Archive Leave a permanent record of their research Renown, immortality 10

11 Elsevier has a long history of scientific publishing The Publishing House of Elzevir was first established in 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at the University of Leiden, Holland Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by Lowys Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modern Elsevier Company in 1880 Among those authors who published with Elsevier are, Galileo, Erasmus, Descartes, Alexander Fleming, Julius Verne 11

12 But there are thousands of scientific publishers 23,000 12

13 Examples of our 2,000 journal titles 13

14 Elsevier s Journal Program today 1,800 journals spread over two divisions; Science & Technology and Health Sciences S&T Journals managed by 5 publishing groups, each specializing in a cluster of subject areas Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios specific to a discipline/community, e.g. Computational Intelligence. There are 84 journal portfolios in total. In the past, I managed the journals in High Energy & Nuclear Physics and Astronomy 14

15 Article Share Share of Journal Articles Published Our Scientific Disciplines 26% Elsevier Environmental Sciences Earth Sciences Life sciences Social Sciences Others Maths & computer science Springer Wiley-Blackwell Physics Materials Science & Engineering IEEE APS AIP Taylor & Francis ACS Wolters Kluwer Chemistry & Chemical Engineering ~1.2 million English language research articles published globally 220,000+ English language research articles published with Elsevier S&T Journals 15

16 The Elsevier Journal Publishing Cycle 1,000 new editors per year 20 new journals per year 9.8 million articles now available 30 Million Researchers 180+ countries 4,500+ institutions 480 million+ downloads per year Archive and promote use Publish and disseminate Solicit and manage submissions Production 800,000+ article submissions per year Manage peer review Edit and prepare 40 90% of articles rejected 7,000 editors 70,000 editorial board members 300,000 reviewers 1.6 million referee reports/yr 600,000 authors 6.5 million author/publisher communications / year 250,000 new articles produced each year 185 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged 16

17 Trends in publishing Rapid conversion from print to electronic 1997: 2005: print only 40% e-only (many e-collections) 30% print only 30% print-plus-electronic Changing role of journals due to e-access Increased usage of articles, at lower cost per article Electronic submission Increased manuscript inflow Experimentation with new publishing models E.g. author pays models, delayed open access, DeepDyve, etc. Experimentation with new peer review models PLoS ONE, open peer review, PeerChoice, etc. 17

18 Online submission and publication is the norm 18

19 Newest tools: citation tracking and bibliometrics 19

20 Elsevier peer review experiments Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) Enable the sharing of review reports between journals (at the author s request) to run a more efficient and fast peer review process overall 37 journals in neuroscience across publishers and societies participate Current uptake low (1-2%), pilot continues Host & monitor Submit reviews Copy of assignments Keep informed Reviewer Mentorship Programme An educational programme for postgraduate students to become certified article reviewers, based on a proven need for more reviewers, guidance on reviewing papers, and a common reviewing standard Programme consists of three phases Reviewer workshop (local or virtual) Traineeship in which trainee performs a number of reviews for an editor, under the supervision of a mentor Graduation and certification Pilot is running in biology and pharmacology areas 20

21 Newest tools: imaging, discovery 3-D imaging technologies Geographical image search Semantic web technologies 21

22 Newest tools: Article of the Future Traditional article structure 22

23 Newest tools: Article of the Future 23

24 Newest tools: Article of the Future 24

25 Newest tools: Article of the Future 25

26 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil Article output Citations Regional ranking Use of online resources 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals 26

27 MAP OF BRAZIL: STRONG FOCUS ON BIOLOGY COMPUTER SCIENCE MATH & PHYSICS SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITIES BRAIN RESEARCH MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AREAS RESEARCH AREA WITH GLOBAL STRENGTH CHEMISTRY ENGINEERING HEALTH SCIENCE MEDICINE BIOLOGY BIOTECHNOLOGY EARTH SCIENCE INFECTIOUS DISEASES

28 MAP OF USP: MANY MULTI-DISCIPLINARY STRENGHTS COMPUTER SCIENCE MATH & PHYSICS HUMANITIES SOCIAL SCIENCE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AREAS CHEMISTRY BRAIN RESEARCH ENGINEERING HEALTH SCIENCE RESEARCH AREA WITH GLOBAL STRENGTH MEDICINE BIOLOGY BIOTECHNOLOGY EARTH SCIENCE INFECTIOUS DISEASE

29 Article publishing in Brazil # articles published % share of world articles China United Kingdom Japan India Brazil China United Kingdom Japan India Brazil % share of world citations FWRI (World = 1.00) 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0, China United Kingdom Japan India Brazil 0, China United Kingdom Japan India Brazil 29

30 Publishing Brazilian Research 30

31 Publication spread over discipline I & M Chemistry BGMB Agri & Biol Medicine Phys & Astr. 31

32 Regional publication growth comparison 32

33 Regional ranking 33

34 Global S&T output ( ) 2008 only 34

35 Global trends - Productivity Increasing following p to e-migration Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it Time Spent Gathering 42% 52% 45% 55% 44% 58% 46% 42% 44% 49% 44% 53% Time Spent Analyzing 58% 48% 55% 45% 56% 42% 54% 58% 56% 51% 56% 47% Fin/HR/Legal IT Sales/Mktg Sci/Eng Mfg/Purch Total Compared to print-only era Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals Source: Outsell s Buyer Market Database & Dr Carol Tenopir, UTK 35

36 Indications of correlation between use of e-content and research output 36 36

37 University College London study confirms strong correlation between e-journal usage, research output and funding in the UK Doubling in downloads, from 1 to 2 million, is statistically associated with dramatic - but not necessarily causal - increases in research productivity Papers up 207% PhD awards up 168% Research grants and contract income up 324% Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact. Research Information Network Report. April 2009 Even stronger as downloads increase further 37

38 Contribution from access to content (scholarly communication) is relatively undervalued in creating competitive research institutions Talented Researchers High Performance Research Engine Laboratories, Facilities Scholarly Communication We can collaboratively demonstrate the importance of scholarly communication and the added value of e-resources to a universities productivity and ability to attract funding 38

39 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact Country bibiometrics Institutional bibliometrics Journal bibliometrics o Impact Factor o Eigen factor o SCImago Journal Rank o Source-Normalized Impact per Paper Personal bibliometrics 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals 39

40 Bibliometrics at the Country level Why? Share of international funding (e.g. EU) Competitive position Attracting talent How? Countries measure Publications Citations Graduates Patents R&D investment Top-ranked universities Ranking compared to other countries 40

41 Assessment often highly based on publications and citations Analysing research strength vis-a-vis growing research areas based on data 41

42 Bibliometrics at the University level Why? Funding Competitive position (students, funding) How? Universities Measure Publication Citations Students Graduates Funding Ranking compared to other universities 42

43 Universities use pub and citation data Visualising specific institutional strength based on data 43

44 Bibliometrics at the Journal level There are multiple ways to assess journals Subjective methods Reputation Local interest Core audience Objective methods Impact Factor Eigenfactor SCImago journal Ranking (SJR) Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 44

45 What is the Impact Factor (IF)? Impact Factor [the average annual number of citations per article published] For example, the 2009 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as follows: A = the number of times articles published in 2007 and 2008 were cited in indexed journals during 2009 B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-editor) published in 2007 and impact factor = A/B e.g. 600 citations = articles 45

46 Impact Factor and other bibliometric parameters 46

47 Impact Factor The Impact Factor measures all citations (numerator), irrespective of article types Abstracts, Editorials and Letters have positive effects on the Impact Factor The Source Item count (denominator) includes only Research Articles, Reviews and Notes All types of self-citations are included 47

48 Impact Factor Pros and Cons 48

49 Alternative calculation of the IF

50 Impact Factor Pros and Cons 50

51 Subject Area Influence on Impact Factors 51

52 Beyond the impact factor: new metrics Eigen Factor SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 52

53 Eigen Factor Developed by Carl Bergstrom in 2007 to address some of the weaknesses of the impact factor We can view the Eigenfactor score of a journal as a rough estimate of how often a journal will be used by scholars Uses algorithms to assess importance of each journal (like Google page rank) 5 year window (IF is 2) Allows citation behavior to set fields, not pre-set fields Counts all citations, regardless of source 53

54 Pros and Cons Pros Ranks more than journal articles Longer citation window Like SJR, scores based on ranking Cons Very large journals will have extremely high Eigenfactor scores simply based upon their size Citations not necessarily articles (peer review article? Editorial? Tabloid?) Does not promote cross discipline comparison Does not differentiate negative citations 54

55 New metrics are now available How are these calculated 55

56 Key features of SJR and SNIP 56

57 Comparing the ranking of top journals 57

58 Comparing the ranking of top journals 58

59 Bibliometrics at the individual level the H-index Measure proposed in 2005 by the physicist Jorge E. Hirsch. Rates a scientist s performance based on their career publications, as measured by the lifetime number of citations each article receives. Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality (number of citations) of a scientist s publications. Official definition: A scientist has index h if h of their N papers have at least h citations each, and the other (N h) papers have no more than h citations each. Translation of definition: If you list all a scientist s publications in descending order of the number of citations received to date, their h-index is the highest number of their papers, h, that have each received at least h citations. So, their h-index is 10 if 10 papers have each received at least 10 citations; their h-index is 81 if 81 papers have each received at least 81 citations. Their h-index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1 citation, but also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations and so on.. 59

60 H-index Fig. 1. Schematic curve of number of citations versus paper number, with papers numbered in order of decreasing citations. The intersection of the 45 line with the curve gives h. The total number of citations is the area under the curve. 60 Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences 60

61 Manuel Elkin Patarroyo 61

62 Finding M. E. Patarroyo s H-index H = 38 62

63 Pros and Cons Pros Based on citations to author s corpus, not journal Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus Easy to understand and calculate Cons Can be biased against young researchers Does not differentiate negative citations Does not differentiate or weigh citing source Does not address differences per field Includes self citations 63

64 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals How do authors choose a journal The roles of the journal The people involved 64

65 What makes great journals? It is NOT technology, or big investments, or great promotion Journals are based on the communities they serve. They are like a living organism and rely on the editors, authors and reviewers that make up that community. They serve the community as long as the community can derive value from the journal. By doing so the community in turn builds greater brand value for the journal. Both the journal and the community benefit from this. 65

66 Four important concepts A journal has no value without the active support of high level scientists Scale helps to be innovative in improving service Top journals are international as science is international Quality attracts quality 66

67 From a journal publishing perspective: responsibilities Key author needs: certification of research, continuation of funding and employment, recognition and career Reviewer Editor Author Publisher paper Research Output journal data etc. 67

68 How do authors choose a journal? They already know the subject coverage of their research paper and its quality and approach They select the set of most appropriate journals in terms of subject coverage They match the general quality of their paper (best, good, ok) to a class of journals (top, average, run-of-the-mill) with the same subject and approach From that class they select a specific journal based upon experience 68

69 How do Authors Choose a Journal? Key Factors: Which Category? Impact Factor Reputation Editorial Standard Publication speed Access to Audience International Coverage Self Evaluation A&I Coverage Society Link?? Journal Hierarchy J J A J J J J B J J J J C J?? Marginal Factors: Which Journal? Track Record Quality/Colour Illustrations Service Elements, e.g. author instructions, quality of proofs, reprints, etc Experience as Referee 69

70 What matters most to Authors? Elsevier Author Feedback Programme Refereeing Speed Refereeing Standard Reputation Impact Factor Audience/Readership Production Speed Editor/Editorial Board Publishing Services Final Quality And thus also critically important to editors

71 Role of the Journal Editor Public face of the journal Decides on what gets published Type and standard of paper Sets editorial policies With editorial board & publishers editor Runs the peer review process Supported by an editorial office funded by the publisher 71

72 Peer Review A methodological check Soundness of argument Supporting data and cited references Done by two anonymous academics ( The reviewers ) Reviewers peer review without payment Costs of administering the selection of reviewers, tracking and collecting reviews are borne by the journal On average 30% more papers are reviewed than published 72

73 Role of the Publisher Editorial (journal brand) management Acquisition of content Monitor research trends Monitor editorial office efficiency and efficacy Monitor key success indicators Editorial renewal Business management Production and online hosting Sales and marketing 73

74 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals Strategic planning o Define your journal position o Indexing o Market analysis o Journal action plan 74

75 What makes a journal successful, once it has found a community? 1. Strategic journal management (brand management) 2. Wide visibility 3. Quality control, peer review and use of journal metrics 4. Customer feedback 75

76 Different journals - Different choices Different roles Readers International Regional Visibility of Regional Science Will not publish cutting edge research Not necessarily unimportant Platform for Students (PhD, PostDocs) Career making publications International scene Not all equally important Regional Authors International 76

77 Strategic Choices Readers International Regional Examples: Pramana (India), Current Applied Physics (S. Korea) Increasing number of journals (related to global scientific development) Limited international recognition Regional loyalty Generally Indexed by major indexing services Reasonable visibility Variable in quality Example journals: Cerâmica (Brazil) Very large number of journals Very limited international recognition Regional loyalty Indexed by only a few major indexing services Regional visibility Quality unclear Examples: Nature, Physical Review, Cell, and many Elsevier journals Many journals already International recognition Limited regional loyalty Indexed by major indexing services Wide visibility Quality above a certain minimum threshold Example: Epidemiology Addressing regional issues by outside experts. Limited number of journals, especially health sciences Limited international recognition Limited visibility Extremely fluctuating quality Regional International Authors 77

78 Scopus covers local content for local audiences 78

79 Interest for inclusion in Scopus is still growing Titles submitted Titles selected 79

80 Quality selection by independent, international board 80

81 Scopus selection criteria a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures Journal policy (35%) Quality of content (20%) Citedness (25%) Regularity (10%) Accessibility (10%) English language abstracts available All cited references in Roman alphabet Convincing editorial concept/policy Level of peer-review Diversity in provenance of editors Diversity in provenance of authors Academic contribution to the field Clarity of abstracts Conformity with journal s aims & scope Readability of articles Citedness of journal articles in Scopus Citedness of editors in Scopus No delay in publication schedule Content available online English-language journal home page Quality of home page Eligibility Peer-review English abstracts Regular publication 81

82 Scopus new title suggestions 82

83 Scopus Title Evaluation Process 83

84 How does it work in practice Let s apply the scoring system to two psychology journals, both published in Eastern Europe, both started in 2005 Journal A Journal B 84

85 Category 1 Journal policy 35% of overall score Journal A Good editorial concept; convincing description of single-blind peer-review process; diversity among authors/editors. 25.1% Journal B Not very convincing editorial concept; no information about peer-review found; no international diversity among authors/editors. 11.9% 85

86 Category 2 Quality of content 20% of overall score Journal A Substantial contribution to field. 13.8% Journal B Most papers cite exclusively Russian authors, i.e. do not take into account international research. 9.8% 86

87 Category 3 - Citedness 25% of overall score Journal A 79% of all published articles have been cited >1. H-index of leading editors is % Journal B Neither editors nor journal has received any citations in Scopus. 0% 87

88 Category 4 - Regularity 10% of overall score Journal A Most recent issue as expected. 10.0% Journal B Publishing quarterly; last published issue six months before spotcheck (i.e. Dec 2008 vs Jun 2009). 5.0% 88

89 Category 5 Online availability 10% of overall score Journal A Homepage fully in English; good quality of homepage. 9.5% Journal B Homepage partly in English; fair quality of homepage. 7.0% 89

90 It works! Result: The scoring system supports the reviewer in his task to position the two journals towards the line of relevance Journal A Reviewer: accept journal Journal B Reviewer: reject journal 90

91 From Strategy to Action Analysis & Objectives per segment and journal Activities per journal Elsevier S&T Strategy S&T Journal Strategy Portfolio strategies Market Analysis Objectives 2011 I) Toxicology IF increase to 2.4 Market share US 28% X Y 2) Pharmacology Toxicology Letters (2011) 25 review articles published by US authors Appoint Harvard editor Manage rejection rate, and article flow to 2550 accepted articles by Host one reviewer workshop Reduce editorial time to 16 wks etc Customer feedback & other market intelligence MARKET 91

92 Portfolio & Journal Action plans for each portfolio and journal PORTFOLIO PLAN: Editorial policies Per Editor: retention and replacement strategy Special issue &review article strategy Emerging areas and markets / New journal launches Customer (author, editor, reviewer) services Society opportunities Commercial Sales opportunities Marketing Results in journal specific actions Per journal: Journal Action Plan

93 Example of journal action plan Journal of Scientific Research Possible Action Current Status Desired Status Action Deadline Impact Factor Consider reduction in size Editor in Chief Quality Strong Continue as is None N/A Editorial office/ Secretary Yes Continue as is None N/A Deputy Editor Quality None Succession planned Appoint deputy Editor December 2011 Editors Quality Fair (section A) to Good (Asia) Strong Appoint new editor section A; Editor from US December 2011 Quantity 2 3 Appoint one more editor December 2011 Geographical Split Reasonable Ad US As above December 2011 EES live N/A N/A Physical quality good good N/A Publication Speed Early Web Visibility No Yes implement June 2011 Refereeing (editorial) time 30 weeks 20 weeks Scopus to reviewers/ new editor August/Dec Online Production time 10 weeks 7 weeks Agree on SLA with production March 2011 Print production time 12 weeks 9 weeks Rejection rate 50% 50% N/A Time to first decision 9 6 Reduce time # of issues/ pages 2006 Special issue policy # of special issues Type of SI s Paper flow For each journal an annual journal action plan, outlining the required actions to improve journal in line with overall strategic direction 93 93

94 Portfolio and journal management based on market knowledge, research and continuous feedback Author feedback programme => all authors are asked for feedback: Against Benchmarks: Against Competition: Editor and Reviewer feedback programmes follow similar approach. 94

95 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals Measuring Quality Influencing impact metrics Assessing themed issues Uncited articles Assessing top articles 95

96 Quality Can it be measured? 96

97 What is Quality? The assessment of quality and value is at the heart of the scholarly communication system Peer review for acceptance of papers Judgements about the quality of a journal Assessment of the work of a researcher from where s/he publishes Judgements about the quality of institutions based on their publication record 97

98 Quality control. What types of tools are available? Scopus Citation Analysis Non-cited Paper Analysis Author Feedback Programme Reviewer Feedback Programme Editor Feedback Programme 98

99 The Refereeing Process Independent refereeing of submitted manuscripts is critical to the scientific publishing process in validating the quality of a piece of work. Referees provide an objective assessment of a submission, and recommend whether a piece of work advances the field sufficiently to warrant publication. Relevance, novelty Relevant work is cited, and discussed as appropriate Methodology is appropriate, and properly described Conclusions are supported by the results reported Evaluate the statistical analyses Ensure that the paper is unambiguous and comprehensible, even if the English is not perfect The Referee recommends, the Editor decides 99

100 Finding and Keeping reviewers Make use of Editorial Board Members for reviewing, and consider rotating off Board Members who are not regularly refereeing Think twice before using referees who have not been active in research in the last 5 years The best referees are often young professors, researchers, post-doctorates, emeritus professors and authors who have recently published in the journal Reject very poor papers outright without sending them to a reviewer. Ask referees whether they are able to review a manuscript before sending it. Give your request a personal touch by customising template letters where possible Develop a set of clear referee guidelines. Notify the referees of your final decision on the paper. Do not 'penalise' timely referees by sending them new articles for review immediately after they have returned a set of comments. Thank referees who are doing a good job Develop a reviewer loyalty programme 100

101 How can you improve the quality of your journal as an Editor? Attract the best authors Find the best referees Have an efficient review process with short turnaround times Commission invited/review articles Claim hot areas in your discipline that are not currently owned by other journals by publishing a thematic issue on it 101

102 Improving the impact metrics Better papers (easier said than done) Fewer papers More reviews More special issues (invited authors) Publish invited works in January (longer citation window) BUT DO NOT Require citations to your journal Write editorials about your journal s articles just to cite them 102

103 Scopus Citation Analysis 103

104 Scopus Issue Analysis Citation analysis at the issue level can answer the following questions: What is the level of citation for the issues published? How are my special issues doing in comparison to the regular issues? Are our review/invited articles contributing as expected? 104

105 Scopus Issue Analysis Average citations per paper Off scale (26.5) AVERAGE CITATIONS PER PAPER / PER ISSUE - Regular Issue - Structural Elucidation - Thematic Issue - Festschrift issue - Shading indicates issue contains review article(s)

106 Scopus Impact Analysis on a Specific Set of Articles How do citations develop in time? Are there specific areas that attract a higher number of citations? How does the number of citations relate to the number of publications? Perform your own bibliometric calculations 106

107 Non-Cited Article Analysis 107

108 % Non-Cited Articles per Journal Uncited % - 5yr Subject Category - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Year Rank Journal Uncited % - 5yr 1 FIELD ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AND TECHNOLOGY 2.78% 2 REGULATED RIVERS-RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT 4.26% 3 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 14.29% 4 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART B-CRITICAL REVIEWS 19.30% 5 APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL 22.99% 6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 23.03% 7 GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 23.49% 8 JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY 25.22% 9 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 25.34% 10 JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE 25.56% 11 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 25.89% 12 CLIMATIC CHANGE 26.03% 13 ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 26.13% 14 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 26.48% 15 WATER RESEARCH 26.58% 16 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 26.67% 17 SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 26.76% 18 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 26.80% 19 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 26.88% 20 REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT 26.98% 108

109 Non-cited Article Analysis Aim Bring down the number of uncited articles as much as possible. Important to determine What type of articles are most cited? What type of articles remain uncited? 109

110 What are the top-cited papers? Are there certain topics that seem to get cited a lot? 110

111 What are the non-cited papers? Can you distinguish any trends in the articles that do not get cited? 111

112 Agenda 1. A Brief History of Journal publishing 2. Scholarly Communication in Brazil 3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact 4. Improving the quality of scientific journals Policy Issues o Copyright o Plagiarism 112

113 Policy issues Some examples 113

114 Plagiarism Editors and Publishing have seen a rise in cases of plagiarism Plagiarism is: the literal copying of the entirety of another's article or paper or other text the literal copying of large portions of another s work the substantive paraphrasing of another s work In all of these cases, the authors whose work is being copied or reproduced may also have legal claims with respect to copyright infringement or violations of their moral rights. 114

115 Other Ethical Issues Some authors are also engaging in other unethical practices Duplicate (Double) submission Submission of the same paper to more than one journal while decision from another journal is still pending Repetitive (Redundant) submission Reporting the same results or methodologies in somewhat different form Improper authorship Crediting individuals who did NOT provide a substantive contribution to the research and the analysis presented Lack of credit to individuals who DID provide a substantive contribution Lack of conflict of interest disclosure Not adhering to guidelines involving treatment, consent, or privacy of research or testing subjects 115

116 Conclusion 116

117 Conclusion Journal publishing is about audience and role Subject, Readers and Authors Evaluation process is continuous Measurables are important Submissions (Origin, Subjects, etc.) Bibliometrics (H-index, Impact Factor, Citations, etc) Feedback from the scientific community is also important Your authors, editors, reviewers and the international community 117

118 Elsevier and Latin America Scopus Award dinners in Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico Research Connect in Chile Deans Connect in Peru Reaxys Seminar in Mexico Scientometric Symposium in Brazil National Consortia in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay Author `s seminars in Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Panamá, México, Uruguay Editor s workshops in Colombia and México Library exhibitions, congress products trainings, etc In 2010 over 40 events organised and/or sponsored 118

119 Contact Information Rose Olthof Director Strategy and Journal Services Bibliometrics, Ethics, Publishing Dante Cid Sales & Marketing Director Account information and services Viviane Cardoso Sales Account Manager Ana Luisa Maia Customer Development Manager Events, seminars 119