Colombia Editor Seminar

7/31/2019 Colombia Editor Seminar

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/colombia-editor-seminar 1/130

Editor Seminar in Journal Publishing

Attaining Excellence in Scholarly CommunicationPresented by: Rose Olthof, Strategy & Business Development Manager, Science & Technology Journals



Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing

2. Scholarly Communication in Colombia

3. Bibliometrics primer: measures of impact

4. Improving the quality of Scientific Journals

2



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



4. Improving the quality of scientific journals

3



Scientific communication: a long time ago

• Informal• Local• Minimal archive

4



Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677)

• Born in Germany

• Resident in London from 1652

• Indefatigable correspondent withmajor scientists of his day

• Appointed (joint) Secretary to theRoyal Society in 1663

• Created (as editor and commercialpublisher) the first scientific journalin 1665

• Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society

5



Journal makes its entry

Significant improvement

in scientific communication:

• Registration• Validation

• Dissemination• Archive

6



“natural philosophy”

mathematics, astronomy, physics,

chemistry, botany, zoology, medicine

many hundreds of

specialized fields

First journals

hundred journals

thousand journals

23 thousand journals

1665

1800

1900

2000s

Differentiation/Fragmentation

7



Relationship of Journals & Researcher Growth

More researchers more journals

0.8

1.2

1.6

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

I n d e x ( 1 9 8

1 = 1 . 0

0 )

US r&d workers

journals

articles

8


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/colombia-editor-seminar 9/1309ACCEPTANCE AS FACT

CRITICAL EVALUATION

COMMUNICATION

OBSERVATION

Private Co-workers Invisible college Speciality Discipline Public

research

Peer reviewed paper

in a journal

monograph historytextbook

reference

workprizes

Science

journalism

1st draftSeminar/workshop/conferenceDraft

for

comment

Draft

mss

Create

Discuss

& revisit

Criticism

Formal

public

evaluation

Formal

confirmation

Acceptance

& integration

The long way from research to public acceptance



What do modern researchers want as authors?

• Register a discovery as theirs and made by them on acertain date

• Assert ownership and achieve priority

Registration

• Get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality

stamped by publication in a journal of known quality• Establish a reputation, and get reward

Validation

• Let their peers know what they have done• Attract recognition and collaboration

Dissemination

• Leave a permanent record of their research• Renown, immortality

Archive

10



Elsevier has a long history of scientific publishing

The Publishing House of Elzevir was first establishedin 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at the University of

Leiden, Holland

Among those authors who published with Elsevier are,Galileo, Erasmus, Descartes, Alexander Fleming, JuliusVerne

Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by LowysElzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modernElsevier Company in 1880

11



But there are thousands of scientific publishers

23,000

12



Examples of our 2,000 journal titles

13

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/00963003

http://www.cell.com/

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gene



Elsevier’s Journal Program today

• Over 2,000 journals spread over two divisions; Science & Technology and HealthSciences

• S&T Journals managed by 5 publishing groups, each specializing in a cluster of subjectareas

• Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios specific to adiscipline/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



Article Share

Share of Journal Articles Published

~1.2 million English language research

articles published globally

Our Scientific Disciplines

220,000+ English language research

articles published with Elsevier S&T Journals

Life sciences

Materials Science &Engineering

Chemistry & ChemicalEngineering

Physics

Maths & computer science

Social Sciences

Earth Sciences

EnvironmentalSciences

Elsevier

Springer

Wiley-Blackwell

ACSTaylor & Francis

Wolters Kluwer AIP

IEEE

APS

Others

26%

15



Solicit and

manage

submissions

Manage

peer review

Production

Publish and

disseminate

Edit and

prepare

Archive and

promote

use

The Elsevier Journal Publishing Cycle

• 30 Million

Researchers

• 180+ countries

• 4,500+ institutions• 480 million+

downloads per year

• 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

• 40 – 90% of

articles rejected• 9.8 million articles

now available

• 250,000 new articles produced each year

• 185 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged

•1,000 new editors per year•18 new journals per year

• 800,000+ article submissions per year

16



Trends in publishing

• Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”◦ 1997: print only

◦ 2005: 40% e-only (many e-collections)30% print only30% 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



Online submission and publication is the norm

18



Newest tools: citation tracking and bibliometrics

19



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 moreefficient and fast peer review process overall

• 37 journals in neuroscience across publishers andsocieties participate

• Current uptake low (1-2%), pilot continues

Reviewer Mentorship Programme

• An educational programme for postgraduate students to become certified article reviewers, based on aproven 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 amentor

• Graduation and certification

• Pilot is running in biology and pharmacology areas

Host &

monitor

Submitreviews

Copy of assignments

Keep informed

20



3-D imaging

technologies

Semantic webtechnologies

Geographicalimage search

Newest tools: imaging, discovery

21



Newest tools: Article of the Future

Traditional article structure

22




23




24




25



Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Colombia

• Article output

• Citations

• Regional ranking

• Use of online resources



26



Article publishing in Colombia

Articles published Citations received

% Articles published with another country Total citations & self citations

27



Publishing Colombian Research

28



Publication spread over discipline

Medicine

Agri & Biol

Phys & Astr.

BGMB

I&M

Neuro

Envir. Science

29



Regional publication growth comparison

30



Regional ranking

31



Global S&T output (1996-2008)

2008 only

32

Gl b l t d P d ti it I i f ll i

http://www.scopus.com/scopus/home.url



Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database & Dr Carol Tenopir, UTK

Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it

Compared to print-only era

• Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year

• Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals

Time SpentGathering

Time SpentAnalyzing

58%

42%

48%

52%

55%

45%

45%

55%

56%

44%

42%

58%

54%

46%

58%

42%

56%

44%

51%

49%

56%

44%

47%

53%

2001 2005Fin/HR/Legal

2001 2005Sci/Eng

2001 2005Mfg/Purch

2001 2005Total

2001 2005IT

2001 2005Sales/Mktg

Global trends - Productivity Increasing following“p to e-migration”

33



0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FTA Downloads on ScienceDirect

* This represents usage on Elsevier’s e-journal and e-book platform ScienceDirect,

which may represent well over 50% of the total usage in Colombia

Colombian Usage growth on ScienceDirect*

34

I di ti f l ti b t f t t



Indications of correlation between use of e-contentand research output

35 35

U i i C ll L d d fi l i

http://nonsolus/sciencedirect/




University College London study confirms strong correlationbetween e-journal usage, research output and funding in the UK

“Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact.” Research Information Network Report . April 2009

“Doubling in

downloads, from 1

to 2 million, isstatistically

associated withdramatic - but not

necessarily causal -increases in

researchproductivity”

Papers up 207%PhD awards up

168%Research grants

and contractincome up 324%

Even stronger asdownloads increase

further36



Contribution from access to content (scholarly communication) is relativelyundervalued in creating competitive research institutions

Talented Researchers

ScholarlyCommunication

Laboratories,Facilities

High

Performance Research

Engine

We can collaboratively demonstrate the importance of scholarlycommunication and the added value of e-Resources to a universities’

productivity and ability to attract funding

37



Agenda

1. A Brief History of Journal publishing2. Scholarly Communication in Colombia


• Country bibiometrics

• Institutional bibliometrics• Journal bibliometrics

o Impact Factor

o Eigen factor

o SCImago Journal Rank

o Source-Normalized Impact per Paper

• Personal bibliometrics


38



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

39

Assessment often highly based on publications and



Analysing research strength vis-a-vis growing research areas based on data

Assessment often highly based on publications andcitations

40

Government and funding agencies use pub and




Government and funding agencies use pub andcitation data

2

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USE SCOPUS DATA

• KISTI is using ScopusCustom Data to analyze thetrend of science & technologywith bibliometric method and

the status of international jointresearch activities. KISTIfound that Scopus coversmore comprehensive

coverage than WOS and

has well-organized datastructure, for example, goodmapping between authors andtheir institutions

• iFQ is using Scopus CustomData to quantify Germanresearch output and evaluatethe global impact. “We will

work with Scopus for thedepth and international

breadth of its citationdatabase,” Professor Stefan

Hornbostel of iFQ.

• “The analytical capabilities

that the content provides willhelp us achieve our mission ofsupporting the Germanscience system with carefullyexamined and relevant

information feeding intopolicies that will allowGermany to continue to be aglobal scientific leader.”

• The Australian ResearchCouncil (ARC) uses Scopuscitation information for theExcellence in Research for

Australia (ERA) initiative.Professor Sheil said. “ERA willevaluate research inAustralian higher education

institutions using acombination of indicators andexpert review." When selectingScopus, the ARC regarded thecoverage of relevantjournals and potential costs

to the sector." The Scopus

team will work directly withinstitutions, to matchpublication records with uniquearticle identifiers in the Scopusdatabase.”

Scopus endorsed

41




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



For universities: pubs and citations=$ and rankings

4

55%

Scopus

45%

Not Scopus

LEADING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS RELY

ON SCOPUS

CanadaMcGill University20

JapanUniversity of Tokyo19

USUniversity of Michigan18

USStanford University17

AustraliaAustralian National University16

USCornell University15 USDuke University13

USJohns Hopkins University13

USPrinceton University12

USUniversity of Pennsylvania11

USColumbia University10

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology

University of Chicago

University College LondonImperial College London

California Institute of Technology

University of Oxford

University of Cambridge

Yale University

Harvard University

Name of Institute

US9

US8

UK7 UK6

US5

UK4

UK3

US2

US1

2008Rank

Country Top 20 Ranked Universities, 2008

43



Visualising specific institutional strength based on data

Universities use pub and citation data

44




Metrics Universities are assessing

Based on data45

Scopus: coverage per discipline compared to




Scopus: coverage per discipline compared tocompetition

46



Scopus covers “local” content for local audiences

47



Bibliometrics at the Journal level

There are multiple ways to assess journals

Subjective methods

• Reputation

• Local interest

• Core audience

“Objective” methods

• Impact Factor

• SCImago journal Ranking (SJR)• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

48

Wh i h I F (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 journalsduring 2009

• B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials

and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2007 and 2008

• 2008 impact factor = A/B

• e.g. 600 citations = 2

150 + 150 articles

What is the Impact Factor (IF)?

49

I t F t d th bibli t i t



Impact Factor and other bibliometric parameters

50

I t F t



• 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, Reviewsand Notes

• All types of self-citations are included

Impact Factor

51

I t F t P d C



Impact Factor Pros and Cons

52

I t F t P d C




53

S bj t A I fl I t F t



Subject Area Influence on Impact Factors

54

I t F t P d C




55

B d th i t f t t i



Beyond the impact factor: new metrics

• Eigen Factor

• SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

• Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

56

Eigen Factor



Eigen Factor

•Developed by Carl Bergstrom in 2007 to address some of the weaknesses of theimpact 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

57

Pros and Cons



Pros and Cons

Pros

• Free

• Ranks more than journal articles

• 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

58

New metrics are now available



New metrics are now available

How are these calculated

59

SJR

http://elsevier.socialtext.net/scopusmarketing/index.cgi?journal_ranking

http://elsevier.socialtext.net/scopusmarketing/index.cgi?journal_ranking



SJR

• SCImago Journal Rank, is a measure of the scientific prestige of scholarly

sources.

• High-prestige citations count more than low-prestige sources

• SJR assigns relative scores to all of the sources in a citation network. Its

methodology is inspired by the Google PageRank algorithm, in that not all citations

are equal. A source transfers its own 'prestige', or status, to another source throughthe act of citing it.

• A citation from a source with a relatively high SJR is worth more than a citation

from a source with a lower SJR.

60

SJR



SJR

61

SJR pros and cons



SJR pros and cons

Pros

• Differentiates between prestige of citations

• Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non-subscribers

• Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or citing (transparent sources)

Cons

• More difficult to explain/understand than IF

• Does not allow comparisons between disciplines


62

SNIP



SNIP

• Source Normalized Impact per Paper measures a source's contextual citation

impact.

• Addresses differences in citation behavior between fields.

• It takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field, especially the

frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the speed at

which citation impact matures, and the extent to which the database used in theassessment covers the field’s literature.

• SNIP is the ratio of a source's average citation count per paper, and the 'citation

potential' of its subject field.

63

SNIP



SNIP

64

SNIP pros and cons



SNIP pros and cons

Pros

• Does not disadvantage smaller or slower-moving fields

• Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non-subscribers

• Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or citing (transparent sources)

Cons

• More difficult to explain/understand than IF

• Does not differentiate between prestige of citations


65

Key features of SJR and SNIP



Key features of SJR and SNIP

66

Comparing the ranking of top journals




67





68





69

Bibliometrics at the individual level – the H-index



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 thelifetime number of citations each article receives.

• Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality (number of citations) of ascientist’s publications.

• Official definition: “A scientist has index h if h of their N papers have at least h citationseach, 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 haveeach received at least 10 citations; their h-index is 81 if 81 papers have each receivedat least 81 citations. Their h-index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1citation, but also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations – and so on..

70

H-index



H-index

71Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences

Fig. 1. Schematic curve of number of citations versus paper number, with papers numbered in order ofdecreasing citations. The intersection of the 45°line with the curve gives h. The total number of citations is thearea under the curve.

71

Manuel Elkin Patarroyo



Manuel Elkin Patarroyo

72

Finding M E Patarroyo’s H-index



H = 38

Finding M. E. Patarroyo s H index

73

Pros and Cons



Pros and Cons

Pros

• Based on citations to author’s corpus, not journal

• Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus

• Free

• Easy to understand and calculate

Cons

• Can be biased against young researchers

• Does not differentiate negative citations

• Does not differentiate or weight citing source

• Does not address differences per field

• Includes self citations

74

Agenda



Agenda





• How do authors choose a journal• The roles of the journal

• The people involved

75

What makes great journals ?



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 andrely on the editors, authors and reviewers that make up that community. They serve thecommunity as long as the community can derive value from the journal. By doing so thecommunity in turn builds greater brand value for the journal. Both the journal and the

community benefit from this.

76

Four important concepts



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

77

From a journal publishing perspective:responsibilities



key author needs:

• certification of research,• continuation of funding and employment,• recognition and career

Author

paper

data

etc.

Reviewer

Publisher

Editor

journal

Research

Output

responsibilities

78

How do authors choose a journal?



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

79

How do Authors Choose a Journal?



How do Authors Choose a Journal?

Impact Factor

Reputation

Editorial StandardPublication speed

Access to Audience

InternationalCoverage

Self Evaluation

A&I Coverage

Society Link

Track Record

Quality/Colour Illustrations

Service Elements, e.g.author instructions,quality of proofs, reprints,etc

Experience as Referee

A

B

C

?

?

?

?

Marginal Factors:

Which Journal?

Key Factors:

Which Category?

Journal Hierarchy

J J

J J

JJ

J

J

J

JJ

80

What matters most to Authors?



Data from 36,188 Authors;0= unimportant10= very important

2=

1

6

5

7

8

4

2=

QUALITY&SPEED

81

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

82

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, postage and document costs are

borne by the journal

• On average 30% more papers are reviewed than published

83

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

84

Agenda



g





• Strategic planningoDefine your journal position

o Indexing

oMarket analysis

o Journal action plan

85

What makes a journal successful, once it has found acommunity?



community?

1. Strategic journal management (brand management)

2. Wide visibility

3. Quality control, peer review and use of journal metrics

4. Customer feedback

86

Different journals - Different choices – Different roles



j

Regional

R e

g i o n a l

International

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Authors

R e a d e r s

Visibility of Regional

Science

Will not publish

cutting edge

research

Not necessarily

unimportant

Platform for

Students (PhD,

PostDocs)

Career makingpublications

International scene

Not all equally

important

87

Strategic Choices



g

Regional

R e g i o n a l

International

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Authors

R e a d e

r s

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

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 journals: Cerâmica (Brazil)

• Very large number of journals

• Very limited international recognition

• Regional loyalty

• Only a few Indexed by major

indexing services• Regional visibility

• Quality unclear

Example: Epidemiology

• Addressing regional issues by outside

experts.

• Limited number of journals, especially

health sciences

• Limited international recognition• Limited visibility

• Extremely fluctuating quality

88

Regional coverage by Scopus



g g y

8400

980

1540

290

5900

460

320

Number of titles per region, based on publisher country

89

Interest for inclusion in Scopus is still growing



90

Quality selection by independent, international board



91

Scopus selection criteria a combinationof quantitative and qualitative measures



Journalpolicy

(35%)

• 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

Quality of content

(20%)

• Academic contribution to the field

• Clarity of abstracts

• Conformity with journal’s aims & scope

• Readability of articles

Citedness

(25%)

• Citedness of journal articles in Scopus

• Citedness of editors in Scopus

Regularity

(10%)• No delay in publication schedule

Accessibility

(10%)

• Content available online

• English-language journal home page

• Quality of home page

Eligibility

• Peer-review

• English abstracts

• Regular publication

of quantitative and qualitative measures

92

Scopus new title suggestions



http://www.info.sciverse.com/node/453

93

Scopus Title Evaluation Process



94

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

95

Category 1 – Journal policy



Good editorial concept; convincing description of single-blind peer-reviewprocess; diversity among authors/editors.

Not very convincing editorial concept; no information about peer-review

found; no international diversity among authors/editors.

25.1%

11.9%

Journal A

Journal B

35% of overall score

96

Category 2 – Quality of content



Substantial contribution to field.

Most papers cite exclusively Russian authors, i.e. do not take into

account international research.

13.8%

9.8%


Journal A

Journal B

97

Category 3 - Citedness



79% of all published articles have been cited >1. H-index of leading editorsis 12.

Neither editors nor journal has received any citations in Scopus.

22.3%

0%


Journal A

Journal B

98

Category 4 - Regularity



Most recent issue as expected.

Publishing quarterly; last published issue six months before

spotcheck (i.e. Dec 2008 vs Jun 2009).

10.0%

5.0%


Journal A

Journal B

99

Category 5 – Online availability



Homepage fully in English; good quality of homepage.

Homepage partly in English; fair quality of homepage.

9.5%

7.0%


Journal A

Journal B

100

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

101

From Strategy to Action



MarketAnalysis

Objectives 2011I) 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 2550accepted articles by 31-12•Host one reviewer workshop•Reduce editorial time to 16 wks

•etc

Analysis &Objectives per

segment and journal

Activities perjournal

Customer feedback& other market intelligence

Elsevier S&TStrategy

S&T Journal Strategy

Portfolio strategies

MARKET

102

Portfolio & Journal Action plans for each portfolioand journal



Per journal:Journal

Action Plan

2011

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

R e s u l t s i n

j o u r n a l s p e c i f i c a

c t i o n s

j

103

Example of journal action plan Journal of Scientific Research



104

Possible Action Current Status Desired Status Action Deadline

Impact Factor 1.650 2.300 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 2011EES 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. 2011

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

Pa er flow

For each journal an annual journal action plan, outlining the requiredactions to improve journal in line with overall strategic direction

104

Portfolio and journal management based on marketknowledge, research and continuous feedback



• Author feedback programme => all authors are asked for feedback:

• Editor and Reviewer feedback programmes follow similar approach.

Against Benchmarks: Against Competition:

g ,

105

Agenda







• Measuring Quality

• Influencing impact metrics

• Assessing themed issues

• Uncited articles

• Assessing top articles

106



QualityCan it be measured?

107

What is Quality?



• The assessment of quality and value is at the heart of the scholarlycommunication 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 publicationrecord

108

Quality control. What types of tools are available?



• Scopus Citation Analysis

• Non-cited Paper Analysis

• Author Feedback Programme

• Reviewer Feedback Programme

• Editor Feedback Programme

109

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 theEnglish is not perfect

The Referee recommends, the Editor decides

110

Finding and Keeping reviewers



• Make use of Editorial Board Members for reviewing, and consider rotating off BoardMembers who are not regularly refereeing

• Think twice before using referees who have not been active in research in the last 5years

• The best referees are often young professors, researchers, post-doctorates, emeritusprofessors 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 immediatelyafter they have returned a set of comments.

• Thank referees who are doing a good job

• Develop a reviewer loyalty programme

• …

• …

111

How can you influence the impact metrics 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 bypublishing a thematic issue on it

112

Influencing 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

113



Scopus Citation Analysis

114

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?

115

Scopus Issue Analysis



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

123456781234567812345678123456781234567812345678123456789 1 0 1 1

1 2 1 3

1 4 1 5

1 6 1 7

1 8 1 9

2 0 2 1

2 2 2 3

2 4123456789

1 0 1 1

1 2 1 3

1 4 1 5

1 6 1 7

1 8 1 9

2 0 2 1

2 2 2 3

2 4

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

2002 2003 2004 2005

A v e r a g e

c i t a t i o n s p e r p a p e r

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)

116

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

117



Non-Cited Article Analysis

118

% Non-Cited Articles per Journal



Uncited % - 5yr

Subject Category -ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES

Year - 2005

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%

119

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?

120

What are the top-cited papers?



Are there certain topics

that seem to get cited a lot?

121

What are the non-cited papers?



Can you distinguish any trendsin the articles that do not get cited?

122

Agenda







• Policy Issues

oCopyright

oPlagiarism

123



Policy issuesSome examples

124

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 mayalso have legal claims with respect to copyright infringement or violations of their

moral rights.

125

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 fromanother 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 theresearch 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

126



Conclusion

127

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

128

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

129

Contact Information



• Rose Olthof – Strategy & Business Development Manager

◦ Bibliometrics, Ethics, Publishing◦ [email protected]

• Luis Moran – Account Manager

◦ Account information and services

◦ [email protected]

◦ +54911-6693-3970

• Erika Hernandez – Account Development Manager

◦ Events, symposia, trainings

◦ [email protected]

• Ana Luisa Maia – Customer Development Manager

◦ Events, seminars

@

Documents

Colombia Editor Seminar