首页> 外文期刊>JISTEM - Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management >Brazilian scientific journals that use the Open Journal Systems (OJS): a quality analysis
【24h】

Brazilian scientific journals that use the Open Journal Systems (OJS): a quality analysis

机译:使用开放期刊系统(OJS)的巴西科学期刊:质量分析

获取原文
       

摘要

This study aims to assess the quality of Brazilian journals that use the Open Journal Systems (OJS) in order to be published. For this purpose, the main criteria used to assess quality were sought in the available literature, and a selection was made of those considered to be of great relevance. The universe of the research was comprised of journals that were correctly registered under their respective subject heading in the system website by June 2010, a total of 236. The sample's nature is intentional and, according to the established criteria, 78 journals were selected for the study. The quality aspects evaluated were: editorial board, authors, rules for article submission, peer review, age, format, language of publication and the journal impact. The criteria were assessed by indicating the presence/absence of the quality indicator or by attributing a poor/reasonable/good, quality scale, according to the criterion assessed. The results indicate that the criteria established for authors, rules for article submission, and format were positively evaluated. The editorial board was also positively assessed, although 38% of the journals analysed did not present the composition of this group on their websites. The peer review criterion was negatively assessed, since only 17% of the journals correctly inform how the article evaluation process occurs and what criteria are used in the assessment of the submitted articles. Furthermore, it was identified the existence of a moderate positive relation between the H-index of the journals and their ages, and that there is no correlation between the language of article publication and the H-index of the journals.
机译:这项研究旨在评估使用开放期刊系统(OJS)进行发布的巴西期刊的质量。为此,在现有文献中寻求用于评估质量的主要标准,并从那些被认为具有重大意义的标准中进行选择。这项研究的范围由截至2010年6月在系统网站上各自主题下正确注册的期刊组成,共有236种。样本的性质是有意的,根据既定标准,选择了78种期刊作为研究。评估的质量方面包括:编辑委员会,作者,文章提交规则,同行评审,年龄,格式,出版语言和期刊影响。根据所评估的标准,通过指示质量指标的存在/不存在或通过归因于不良/合理/良好的质量量表来评估标准。结果表明,为作者建立的标准,文章提交的规则和格式得到了积极评价。尽管38%的分析期刊未在其网站上介绍该小组的组成,但也对编辑委员会进行了积极评估。同行评议标准受到负面评估,因为只有17%的期刊正确地告知了文章评估过程是如何发生的,以及对提交的文章进行评估时使用了哪些标准。此外,还确定了期刊的H指数和它们的年龄之间存在适度的正相关关系,并且文章发表的语言与期刊的H指数之间没有相关性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号