Academic journals indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus database (Elsevier B.V.). These indicators can be used to assess and analyze scientific domains.

Ancient Science of Life Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - Ancient Science of Life, is the oldest peer-reviewed scientific journal in Ayurveda which publishes full-length original papers and reviews on Ayurveda, allied disciplines and all forms of traditional medicines. The journal provides an interdisciplinary platform for linking traditional knowledge with the latest advancements in science. Preferences are given for contributions that interface Ayurveda with disciplines like Botany, Ethnobotany, Ethnomedicine, Ethnopharmacology, Biology, Biotechnology, Medicinal chemistry, Pharmacology, Cclinical pharmacology, Phytochemistry, Pharmacognosy, Clinical research, Animal experiments and the like. Articles on traditional medicines from the perspective of the history of medicine, medical anthropology, medical sociology, epidemiology and community medicine will also be accepted. Original literary studies covering aspects of linguistics, philology, literary criticism and critical editing of the original writings of Ayurveda and other traditional systems of medicine will also be accepted for publication. Abstracting and Indexing Information The journal is registered with the following abstracting partners: Baidu Scholar, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases, Ex Libris – Primo Central, Google Scholar, Hinari, Infotrieve, National Science Library, ProQuest, TdNet, Wanfang Data The journal is indexed with, or included in, the following: DOAJ, Emerging Sources Citation Index, Index Copernicus, Indian Science Abstracts, Web of Science

Data and code for manuscript:

David B Resnik, Melissa Morales, Rachel Landrum, Min Shi, Jessica Minnier, Nicole A. Vasilevsky & Robin E. Champieux (2019) Effect of Impact Factor and Discipline on Journal Data Sharing Policies, Accountability in Research, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1591277

Zenodo pre-print DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2592682

Data collection utilized three sources:

• 2016 InCites Journal Citations Report
• Directory of Open Access Journal
• Journal websites and author guidelines

The data was collected and analyzed between May 2018 and October 2018.

Data and Code

Data can be found in data/if-discipline-datasharing-policy-rawdata-1.0.0.csv.

Analysis code for tables and figures can be seen in code/analysis_report.md (author of code: Jessica Minnier, OHSU, @jminnier)

Research data to accommodate the article "Overlay journals: a study of the current landscape" (https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221125208)

Identifying the sample of overlay journals was an explorative process (occurring during April 2021 to February 2022). The sample of investigated overlay journals were identified by using the websites of Episciences.org (2021), Scholastica (2021), Free Journal Network (2021), Open Journals (2021), PubPub (2022), and Wikipedia (2021). In total, this study identified 34 overlay journals. Please see the paper for more details about the excluded journal types.

The journal ISSN numbers, manuscript source repositories, first overlay volumes, article volumes, publication languages, peer-review type, licence for published articles, author costs, publisher types, submission policy, and preprint availability policy were observed by inspecting journal editorial policies and submission guidelines found from journal websites. The overlay journals’ ISSN numbers were identified by examining journal websites and cross-checking this information with the Ulrich’s periodicals database (Ulrichsweb, 2021). Journals that published review reports, either with reviewers’ names or anonymously, were classified as operating with open peer-review. Publisher types defined by Laakso and Björk (2013) were used to categorise the findings concerning the publishers. If the journal website did not include publisher information, the editorial board was interpreted to publish the journal.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) field of science classification was used to categorise the journals into different domains of science. The journals’ primary OECD field of sciences were defined by the authors through examining the journal websites.

Whether the journals were indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Scopus, or Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science Core collection’s journal master list was examined by searching the services with journal ISSN numbers and journal titles.

The identified overlay journals were examined from the viewpoint of both qualitative and quantitative journal metrics. The qualitative metrics comprised the Nordic expert panel rankings of scientific journals, namely the Finnish Publication Forum, the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator and the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers. Searches were conducted from the web portals of the above services with both ISSN numbers and journal titles. Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Reports database was searched with the use of both ISSN numbers and journal titles to identify whether the journals had a Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), Two-Year Impact Factor (IF) and an Impact Factor ranking (IF rank). The examined Journal Impact Factors and Impact Factor rankings were for the year 2020 (as released in 2021).

Data for impact factor. Fields are descriptive.

A database from 140 scientific articles (journal and conference papers) from the automotive security domain. In the database, we assigned specific attributes to every article (such as Web of Science Impact Factor or the number of citations). The data set was analyzed by the K-means clustering and decision tree analysis methods to identify and characterize the generated groups of papers.

We did not aim to identify perfectly supplementing categories but to define the relevant research topics of the automotive security domain. Following this, some of the chosen categories may have overlap with other topics, which means that these research categories may be partly laid on common scientific and professional basics. However, all the considered categories can be defined as separate, scientifically significant, and considerably relevant research orientations.

pone.0296323.t001 - Scientific clickbait: Examining media coverage and readability in genome-wide association research

Academic publishers purport to be arbiters of knowledge, aiming to publish studied that advance the frontiers of their research domain. Yet the effectiveness of journal editors at identifying novel and important research is generally unknown, in part because of the confidential nature of the editorial and peer-review process. Using questionnaires, we evaluated the degree to which journals are effective arbiters of scientific impact in the domain of Ecology, quantified by three key criteria. First, journals discriminated against low-impact manuscripts: the probability of rejection increased as the number of citations gained by the published paper decreased. Second, journals were more likely to publish high-impact manuscripts (those that obtained citations in 90th percentile for their journal) than run-of-the-mill manuscripts; editors were only 23 and 41% as likely to reject an eventual high-impact paper (pre- versus post-review rejection) compared to a run-of-the-mill paper. Third, editors did occasionally reject papers that went on to be highly cited. Error rates were low, however: only 3.8% of rejected papers gained more citations than the median article in the journal that rejected them, and only 9.2% of rejected manuscripts went on to be high-impact papers in the (generally lower impact factor) publishing journal. The effectiveness of scientific arbitration increased with journal prominence, although some highly prominent journals were no more effective than much less prominent ones. We conclude that the academic publishing system, founded on peer review, appropriately recognises the significance of research contained in manuscripts, as measured by the number of citations that manuscripts obtain after publication, even though some errors are made. We therefore recommend that authors reduce publication delays by choosing journals appropriate to the significance of their research.

We investigate how textual properties of scientific papers relate to the number of citations they receive. Our main finding is that correlations are nonlinear and affect differently the most cited and typical papers. For instance, we find that, in most journals, short titles correlate positively with citations only for the most cited papers, whereas for typical papers, the correlation is usually negative. Our analysis of six different factors, calculated both at the title and abstract level of 4.3 million papers in over 1500 journals, reveals the number of authors, and the length and complexity of the abstract, as having the strongest (positive) influence on the number of citations.

Data were collected from Thomson Reuters WoS data base. Two columns of IF are shown for each country for selected journals. One is for the total of articles of the country and the other for articles with affiliation of the country only, without collaboration. For each journal the corresponding 2006 citations of 2004+2005 articles and the number of 2004+2005 articles are shown below each IF value.

Dataset accompanying the paper submitted to F1000 entitled The Varying Openness of Digital Open Science Tools.

Abstract of paper

Digital tools that support Open Science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into Open Science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the Open Science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure.

In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future Open Science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes.

Digital Open Science Tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.

Indian Journal of Dental Research Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - Indian Journal of Dental Research (IJDR) is the official publication of the Indian Society for Dental Research (ISDR), India division of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), published Bimonthly. IJDR publishes scientific papers on well designed and controlled original research involving orodental sciences. Papers may also include reports on unusual and interesting case presentations and invited review papers on significant topics. Abstracting and Indexing Information The journal is registered with the following abstracting partners: Baidu Scholar, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases, Ex Libris – Primo Central, Google Scholar, Hinari, Infotrieve, National Science Library, ProQuest, TdNet, Wanfang Data The journal is indexed with, or included in, the following: DOAJ, EMBASE/ Excerpta Medica, Indian Science Abstracts, IndMed, MEDLINE/Index Medicus, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOPUS Journal Ethics Wolters Kluwer and Journal/Association are committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. For a summary of our specific policies regarding duplicate publication, conflicts of interest, patient consent, etc.,

Journal of Wildlife Management Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that have direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including the development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta-analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology. Society Information The Wildlife Society (TWS), founded in 1937, is a professional international non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Its mission is to enhance the ability of wildlife professionals to conserve diversity, sustain productivity, and ensure responsible use of wildlife resources for the benefit of society. The Wildlife Society encourages professional growth through certification, peer-reviewed publications, conferences, and working groups. Society members are dedicated to the sustainable management of wildlife resources and their habitats. Ecology is the primary scientific discipline of the wildlife profession, therefore, the interests of the Society embrace the interactions of all organisms with their natural environments. The Society recognizes that humans, like other organisms, have a total dependency upon the environment. It is the Society's belief also that wildlife, in its myriad forms, is basic to the maintenance of a human culture that provides quality living. Abstracting and Indexing Information AgBiotech News & Information (CABI) AgBiotechNet (CABI) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Agricultural Engineering Abstracts (CABI) Animal Breeding Abstracts (CABI) Biocontrol News & Information (CABI) Biofuels Abstracts (CABI) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) Botanical Pesticides (CABI) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Crop Physiology Abstracts (CABI) Dairy Science Abstracts (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Field Crop Abstracts (CABI) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Horticultural Science Abstracts (CABI) Irrigation & Drainage Abstracts (CABI) Leisure, Recreation & Tourism Abstracts (CABI) Maize Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Nutrition Abstracts & Reviews Series B: Livestock Feeds & Feeding (CABI) Ornamental Horticulture (CABI) Pig News & Information (CABI) Plant Breeding Abstracts (CABI) Plant Genetic Resources Abstracts (CABI) Plant Growth Regulator Abstracts (CABI) Potato Abstracts (CABI) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-368 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) Review of Agricultural Entomology (CABI) Review of Aromatic & Medicinal Plants (CABI) Review of Medical & Veterinary Entomology (CABI) Review of Medical & Veterinary Mycology (CABI) Review of Plant Pathology (CABI) Rice Abstracts (CABI) Rural Development Abstracts (CABI) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Seed Abstracts (CABI) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Soybean Abstracts Online (CABI) Tropical Diseases Bulletin (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI) Weed Abstracts (CABI) Wheat, Barley & Triticale Abstracts (CABI) World Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology Abstracts (CABI) RG Journal Impact: 0.93 * *This value is calculated using ResearchGate data and is based on average citation counts from work published in this journal. The data used in the calculation may not be exhaustive. RG Journal impact history 2020 Available summer 2021 2018 / 2019 0.93 2017 0.70 2016 0.84 2015 1.94 2014 2.06 2013 1.69 2012 1.38 2011 3.34 2010 3.62 2009 1.05 2008 1.70 2007 1.36 2006 1.91 2005 2.03 2004 2.14 2003 1.86 2002 1.64 2001 1.50 2000 1.41 Journal of Wildlife Management Additional details Cited half-life 0.00 Immediacy index 0.29 Eigenfactor 0.01 Article influence 0.64 Other titles The Journal of wildlife management OCLC 1782497 Material type Periodical, Internet resource Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., 'senior') authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year-on-year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all-male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally-well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non-English speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English-speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.

This dataset contains records of research articles extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) from 1980 to 2019---in total, 15,642 journals, 28,241,100 articles and 111,980,858 authorships across 153 research areas.

The main dataset (author_address_article_gend_v2.parquet), in Parquet format, contains all the authorships, where an authorship is defined as the tuple article-author. There are 12 variables per authorship (row):

• ut: unique article identifier.
• daisng_id: unique author identifier.
• country: author country (two-letter ISO code).
• date: publication date.
• gender: gender of the author ("male" or "female"), as provided by the Genderize.io API.
• probability: probability of the gender attribute, as provided by the Genderize.io API.
• count: number of entries for the author first name, as provided by the Genderize.io API.
• jsc: journal subject category.
• field: field of research.
• research_area: area of research.
• n_aut: number of authors in this publication.
• journal: journal name.

With the previous dataset, a resampler was applied to generate null homophily values for each year. There are 4 datasets in R Data Serialization (RDS) format:

• null_field.rds: null homophily values per country, year and field of research.
• null_field_comp.rds: null homophily values per year and field of research (only for complete authorships).
• null_research.rds: null homophily values per year and area of research.
• null_research_comp.rds: null homophily values per year and area of research (only for complete authorships).

All these datasets have the same structure:

• country: country (two-letter ISO code).
• year: year.
• variable: either field or research area name.
• m: average homophily.
• s: homophily std. error.

Finally, some supplementary files used in the descriptive analysis and methods:

• File null_research_l2019.rds is an example of the output from the resampling algorithm for year 2019.
• File wos_category_to_field.csv is a mapping from WoS categories to more general fields.
• File jcr_if_2020.csv contains the percentiles of the journal impact factor for the JCR 2020.

SoftwareX Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - SoftwareX aims to acknowledge the impact of software on today's research practice, and on new scientific discoveries in almost all research domains. SoftwareX also aims to stress the importance of the software developers who are, in part, responsible for this impact. To this end, SoftwareX aims to support publication of research software in such a way that: The software is given a stamp of scientific relevance, and provided with a peer-reviewed recognition of scientific impact; The software developers are given the credits they deserve; The software is citable, allowing traditional metrics of scientific excellence to apply; The academic career paths of software developers are supported rather than hindered; The software is publicly available for inspection, validation, and re-use. Above all, SoftwareX aims to inform researchers about software applications, tools and libraries with a (proven) potential to impact the process of scientific discovery in various domains. The journal is multidisciplinary and accepts submissions from within and across subject domains such as those represented within the broad thematic areas below: Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Environmental Sciences; Medical and Biological Sciences; Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. Originating from these broad thematic areas, the journal also welcomes submissions of software that works in cross cutting thematic areas, such as citizen science, cybersecurity, digital economy, energy, global resource stewardship, health and wellbeing, etcetera. SoftwareX specifically aims to accept submissions representing domain-independent software that may impact more than one research domain. Domain independent underpinning software tools and technologies have for too long been underrepresented in academic literature. We wish to ensure that these software items get academic recognition and welcome submissions of software tools and services that may otherwise not have a publication home. Examples include mathematical or image processing libraries or methodologies, visualization tools, data management, etcetera. Through the quality of the description and of the (potential) impact of the software deposited we aim that significant reuse will occur both within and without the original developing domain and therefore encourage consideration of this reuse factor when submitting and in the language used within the description.

The popularity of science blogging has increased in recent years, but the number of academic scientists who maintain regular blogs is limited. The role and impact of science communication blogs aimed at general audiences is often discussed, but the value of science community blogs aimed at the academic community has largely been overlooked. Here, we focus on our own experiences as bloggers to argue that science community blogs are valuable to the academic community. We use data from our own blogs (n = 7) to illustrate some of the factors influencing reach and impact of science community blogs. We then discuss the value of blogs as a standalone medium, where rapid communication of scholarly ideas, opinions, and short observational notes can enhance scientific discourse, and discussion of personal experiences can provide indirect mentorship for junior researchers and scientists from underrepresented groups. Finally, we argue that science community blogs can be treated as a primary source and provide some key points to consider when citing blogs in peer-reviewed literature.

The four reported metrics are submission day (Day), number of downloads (Down), citation count (Cit), and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) which is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals (an alternative to the well-known impact factor). The ER and QRC algorithm use and , respectively.Mean and standard error for basic metrics of top 20 papers obtained with various algorithms.

A survey was conducted on LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) impact categories where NoAW stakeholders expressed their preferences and justifications about the importance (represented as ranks) of these categories. The assessment of the resulting aggregating ranking with or without taking into account the potentially conflicting justifications is provided in this dataset. The survey was conducted on 31 participants from the European projects NoAW and Agrocycle consisting of both public and private stakeholders. They were asked to give a ranking of importance of 18 different impact categories along with their justification for this ranking. Files included in this dataset are: - Survey anonimized responses - JSON files with the encoding of stakeholders' justified preferences for 5 impact factors - Results of the votes before and after application of the argumentation method

Many initiatives encourage investigators to share their raw datasets in hopes of increasing research efficiency and quality. Despite these investments of time and money, we do not have a firm grasp of who openly shares raw research data, who doesn't, and which initiatives are correlated with high rates of data sharing. In this analysis I use bibliometric methods to identify patterns in the frequency with which investigators openly archive their raw gene expression microarray datasets after study publication. Automated methods identified 11,603 articles published between 2000 and 2009 that describe the creation of gene expression microarray data. Associated datasets in best-practice repositories were found for 25% of these articles, increasing from less than 5% in 2001 to 30%-35% in 2007-2009. Accounting for sensitivity of the automated methods, approximately 45% of recent gene expression studies made their data publicly available. First-order factor analysis on 124 diverse bibliometric attributes of the data creation articles revealed 15 factors describing authorship, funding, institution, publication, and domain environments. In multivariate regression, authors were most likely to share data if they had prior experience sharing or reusing data, if their study was published in an open access journal or a journal with a relatively strong data sharing policy, or if the study was funded by a large number of NIH grants. Authors of studies on cancer and human subjects were least likely to make their datasets available. These results suggest research data sharing levels are still low and increasing only slowly, and data is least available in areas where it could make the biggest impact. Let's learn from those with high rates of sharing to embrace the full potential of our research output.