Files associated with the manuscript: Proteome profiling of rat brain cortical changes during early postnatal brain development. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Winnik, W., W. Padgett, E. Pitzer, and D. Herr. Proteome profiling of rat brain cortical changes during early postnatal brain development. Journal of Proteome Research. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA, 22(7): 2460-2476, (2023).

There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68–0.84 Spearman’s ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows.

P values represent a widely used, but pervasively misunderstood and fiercely contested method of scientific inference. Display items, such as figures and tables, often containing the main results, are an important source of P values. We conducted a survey comparing the overall use of P values and the occurrence of significant P values in display items of a sample of articles in the three top multidisciplinary journals (Nature, Science, PNAS) in 2017 and, respectively, in 1997. We also examined the reporting of multiplicity corrections and its potential influence on the proportion of statistically significant P values. Our findings demonstrated substantial and growing reliance on P values in display items, with increases of 2.5 to 14.5 times in 2017 compared to 1997. The overwhelming majority of P values (94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 92% to 96%) were statistically significant. Methods to adjust for multiplicity were almost non-existent in 1997, but reported in many articles relying on P values in 2017 (Nature 68%, Science 48%, PNAS 38%). In their absence, almost all reported P values were statistically significant (98%, 95% CI 96% to 99%). Conversely, when any multiplicity corrections were described, 88% (95% CI 82% to 93%) of reported P values were statistically significant. Use of Bayesian methods was scant (2.5%) and rarely (0.7%) articles relied exclusively on Bayesian statistics. Overall, wider appreciation of the need for multiplicity corrections is a welcome evolution, but the rapid growth of reliance on P values and implausibly high rates of reported statistical significance are worrisome.

This description is part of the blog post "Systematic Literature Review of teaching Open Science" https://sozmethode.hypotheses.org/839

According to my opinion, we do not pay enough attention to teaching Open Science in higher education. Therefore, I designed a seminar to teach students the practices of Open Science by doing qualitative research.About this seminar, I wrote the article ”Teaching Open Science and qualitative methods“. For the article ”Teaching Open Science and qualitative methods“, I started to review the literature on ”Teaching Open Science“. The result of my literature review is that certain aspects of Open Science are used for teaching. However, Open Science with all its aspects (Open Access, Open Data, Open Methodology, Open Science Evaluation and Open Science Tools) is not an issue in publications about teaching.

Based on this insight, I have started a systematic literature review. I realized quickly that I need help to analyse and interpret the articles and to evaluate my preliminary findings. Especially different disciplinary cultures of teaching different aspects of Open Science are challenging, as I myself, as a social scientist, do not have enough insight to be able to interpret the results correctly. Therefore, I would like to invite you to participate in this research project!

I am now looking for people who would like to join a collaborative process to further explore and write the systematic literature review on “Teaching Open Science“. Because I want to turn this project into a Massive Open Online Paper (MOOP). According to the 10 rules of Tennant et al (2019) on MOOPs, it is crucial to find a core group that is enthusiastic about the topic. Therefore, I am looking for people who are interested in creating the structure of the paper and writing the paper together with me. I am also looking for people who want to search for and review literature or evaluate the literature I have already found. Together with the interested persons I would then define, the rules for the project (cf. Tennant et al. 2019). So if you are interested to contribute to the further search for articles and / or to enhance the interpretation and writing of results, please get in touch. For everyone interested to contribute, the list of articles collected so far is freely accessible at Zotero: https://www.zotero.org/groups/2359061/teaching_open_science. The figure shown below provides a first overview of my ongoing work. I created the figure with the free software yEd and uploaded the file to zenodo, so everyone can download and work with it:

To make transparent what I have done so far, I will first introduce what a systematic literature review is. Secondly, I describe the decisions I made to start with the systematic literature review. Third, I present the preliminary results.

Systematic literature review – an Introduction

Systematic literature reviews “are a method of mapping out areas of uncertainty, and identifying where little or no relevant research has been done.” (Petticrew/Roberts 2008: 2). Fink defines the systematic literature review as a “systemic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners.” (Fink 2019: 6). The aim of a systematic literature reviews is to surpass the subjectivity of a researchers’ search for literature. However, there can never be an objective selection of articles. This is because the researcher has for example already made a preselection by deciding about search strings, for example “Teaching Open Science”. In this respect, transparency is the core criteria for a high-quality review.

In order to achieve high quality and transparency, Fink (2019: 6-7) proposes the following seven steps:

1. Selecting a research question.
2. Selecting the bibliographic database.
3. Choosing the search terms.
4. Applying practical screening criteria.
5. Applying methodological screening criteria.
6. Doing the review.
7. Synthesizing the results.

I have adapted these steps for the “Teaching Open Science” systematic literature review. In the following, I will present the decisions I have made.

Systematic literature review – decisions I made

1. Research question: I am interested in the following research questions: How is Open Science taught in higher education? Is Open Science taught in its full range with all aspects like Open Access, Open Data, Open Methodology, Open Science Evaluation and Open Science Tools? Which aspects are taught? Are there disciplinary differences as to which aspects are taught and, if so, why are there such differences?
2. Databases: I started my search at the Directory of Open Science (DOAJ). “DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.” (https://doaj.org/) Secondly, I used the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (base). Base is operated by Bielefeld University Library and “one of the world’s most voluminous search engines especially for academic web resources” (base-search.net). Both platforms are non-commercial and focus on Open Access publications and thus differ from the commercial publication databases, such as Web of Science and Scopus. For this project, I deliberately decided against commercial providers and the restriction of search in indexed journals. Thus, because my explicit aim was to find articles that are open in the context of Open Science.
3. Search terms: To identify articles about teaching Open Science I used the following search strings: “teaching open science” OR teaching “open science” OR teach „open science“. The topic search looked for the search strings in title, abstract and keywords of articles. Since these are very narrow search terms, I decided to broaden the method. I searched in the reference lists of all articles that appear from this search for further relevant literature. Using Google Scholar I checked which other authors cited the articles in the sample. If the so checked articles met my methodological criteria, I included them in the sample and looked through the reference lists and citations at Google Scholar. This process has not yet been completed.
4. Practical screening criteria: I have included English and German articles in the sample, as I speak these languages (articles in other languages are very welcome, if there are people who can interpret them!). In the sample only journal articles, articles in edited volumes, working papers and conference papers from proceedings were included. I checked whether the journals were predatory journals – such articles were not included. I did not include blogposts, books or articles from newspapers. I only included articles that fulltexts are accessible via my institution (University of Kassel). As a result, recently published articles at Elsevier could not be included because of the special situation in Germany regarding the Project DEAL (https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/). For articles that are not freely accessible, I have checked whether there is an accessible version in a repository or whether preprint is available. If this was not the case, the article was not included. I started the analysis in May 2019.
5. Methodological criteria: The method described above to check the reference lists has the problem of subjectivity. Therefore, I hope that other people will be interested in this project and evaluate my decisions. I have used the following criteria as the basis for my decisions: First, the articles must focus on teaching. For example, this means that articles must describe how a course was designed and carried out. Second, at least one aspect of Open Science has to be addressed. The aspects can be very diverse (FOSS, repositories, wiki, data management, etc.) but have to comply with the principles of openness. This means, for example, I included an article when it deals with the use of FOSS in class and addresses the aspects of openness of FOSS. I did not include articles when the authors describe the use of a particular free and open source software for teaching but did not address the principles of openness or re-use.
6. Doing the review: Due to the methodical approach of going through the reference lists, it is possible to create a map of how the articles relate to each other. This results in thematic clusters and connections between clusters. The starting point for the map were four articles (Cook et al. 2018; Marsden, Thompson, and Plonsky 2017; Petras et al. 2015; Toelch and Ostwald 2018) that I found using the databases and criteria described above. I used yEd to generate the network. „yEd is a powerful desktop application that can be used to quickly and effectively generate high-quality diagrams.” (https://www.yworks.com/products/yed) In the network, arrows show, which articles are cited in an article and which articles are cited by others as well. In addition, I made an initial rough classification of the content using colours. This classification is based on the contents mentioned in the articles’ title and abstract. This rough content classification requires a more exact, i.e., content-based subdivision and

Vast numbers of scientific articles are published each year, some of which attract considerable attention, and some of which go almost unnoticed. Here, we investigate whether any of this variance can be explained by a simple metric of one aspect of the paper's presentation: the length of its title. Our analysis provides evidence that journals which publish papers with shorter titles receive more citations per paper. These results are consistent with the intriguing hypothesis that papers with shorter titles may be easier to understand, and hence attract more citations.

This data paper template refers to the national standards Data Paper Publishing Metadata (GB/T 42813-2023) and Academic Paper Writing Rules (GB/T 7713.2-2022), and also investigates and to some extent refers to the paper templates of domestic and foreign journals that publish data papers.

Open access (OA) can be defined as the practice of providing on-line access to scientific information that is free of charge to the user and that is re-usable. A distinction is usually made between OA to scientific peer reviewed publications and research data. In Horizon 2020 open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications (primarily articles) is mandatory; however, researchers can choose between the open access route most appropriate to them.

For open access publishing (gold open access), researchers can publish in open access journals, or in journals that sell subscriptions and also offer the possibility of making individual articles openly accessible (hybrid journals). In that case, publishers often charge an article processing charge (APC). These costs are eligible for reimbursement during the duration of the Horizon 2020 grant. For APCs incurred after the end of the grant agreement, a mechanism for reimbursing some of these costs is being piloted and implemented through the OpenAIRE project. Note that in case of gold open access publishing, a copy must also be deposited in an open access repository.

For self-archiving (green open access), researchers deposit the final peer-reviewed manuscript in a repository of their choice. In this case, they must ensure open access to the publication within six months of publication (12 months in case of the social sciences and humanities).

This page provides an overview of the state of play as regards the uptake of open access to scientific publications in Horizon 2020 from 2014 to 2017, updating information from 2016.

Two datasets have been used for the analysis presented in this note: one dataset from the EU funded OpenAIRE project for FP7 and H2020 and one dataset from CORDA for H2020, which also provides supplementary information on article processing charges and embargo periods. The datasets are from September and August 2017 respectively.

The OpenAIRE sample includes primarily peer-reviewed scientific articles but also some other forms of publications such as conference papers, book chapters and reports or pre-prints. It is based on information obtained from Open Access repositories, pre-print servers, OA journals and project reports and contains some underreporting since OpenAIRE has difficulties tracking hybrid publications and publications in repositories which are not OpenAIRE compliant. The CORDA sample contains only peer-reviewed scientific articles and is based on project self-reporting. The figures in this note measure open access in a broad sense and not the compliance with the specifics of article 29.2. of the Model Grant Agreement.

The 2017 analysis of open access during the entirety of Horizon 2020 so far shows an overall open access rate of 63,2% from OpenAIRE data (+2,4% compared with the sample from 2016). Internal project reporting through SYGMA shows a total of 80,6% open access for Horizon 2020 scientific peer reviewed articles and 75% for all peer-reviewed publications (including also conference procedures, book chapter, monographs and the like); however, since this data is based on beneficiary self-reporting it may contain some over-reporting.

According to the OpenAIRE sample 75% of publications are green open access and 25% gold open access. Internal figures are similar although they show a slightly higher amount of gold OA with a split of 70% green and 30% gold.

For gold OA internal project reporting suggests than an average of 1500 € is spent per article (median: 1200 €), an increase from the average of 1006 € in the previous sample. A more detailed analysis reveals that 27% percent of articles have a price tag of between 1000 to 1999 €. It is also important to note that 26% of all publications are in gold OA but without any APC charges. Very high APCs of 4000€ or more only concerns a tiny fraction of Horizon 2020 publications (3%).

The average embargo period of green OA publications is 10 months, that is a decrease of 1 month from the 2016 sample. 40% of articles have an embargo period of 11-12 months, followed by 575 articles (or 33% with no embargo period at all. 302 articles, that is 17% have an embargo period of 12,1-24 months and 162 articles or 9% of 0,1 to 6 months. Finally, 12 articles, that is 1%, have an embargo period that is longer than 36 months.

This 2017 analysis thus broadly confirms the earlier findings from summer 2016, but is based on a larger and more robust sample. In the 2017 sample overall open access rates have gone up in all the datasets and cohorts. The distribution between gold and green open access remains similar to the 2016 dataset; for gold OA, average APCs have increased, for green OA embargo periods have slight decreased.

Please consult the background note for a more detailed analysis. Note also that these files only refer to open access to publications. Information on open access to research data is made available on the open data portal on a diffe

The data in this set was gathered to analyze the open access practices of library journals. The data was culled from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Proquest database Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), and a sample of peer reviewed scholarly journals in the field of Library Science. Starting with a batch of 377 journals, the researchers focused their dataset to include journals that met the following criteria: 1) peer-reviewed 2) written in English or abstracted in English, 3) actively published at the time of analysis, and 4) scoped to librarianship. The dataset presents an overview of the landscape of open access scholarly publishing in the LIS field during a very specific time period, spring and summer of 2023. Methods Data Collection The researchers gathered 377 scholarly journals whose content covered the work of librarians, archivists, and affiliated information professionals. This data encompassed 222 journals from the Proquest database Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), widely regarded as an authoritative database in the field of librarianship. From the Directory of Open Access Journals, we included 144 LIS journals. We also included 11 other journals not indexed in DOAJ or LISA, based on the researchers’ knowledge of existing OA library journals. The data is separated into several different sets representing the different indices and journals we searched. The first set includes journals from the database LISA. The following fields are in this dataset:

Journal: title of the journal

Publisher: title of the publishing company

Publisher Type: the kind of publisher, whether association, traditional, university library, or independent

Country of publication: country where the journal is published

Region: geographical place of publication

Open Data Policy: lists whether an open data exists and what the policy is

Open Data Notes: descriptions of the open data policies Open ranking: details whether the journal is diamond, gold, and/or green

Open peer review: specifies if the journal does open peer review

Author retains copyright: explains copyright policy

APCs: Details whether there is an article processing charge

In DOAJ: details whether the journal is also published in the Directory of Open Access Journals

The second set includes similar as the previous set, but it also includes two additional columns:

Type of CC: lists the Creative Commons license applied to the journal articles

In LISA: details whether the journal is also published in the Library and Information Science Abstracts database

A third dataset includes eleven scholarly, peer reviewed journals focused on Library and Information Science that were not in DOAJ or LISA. This dataset is also labeled with the same fields as the first dataset. The fourth dataset is the complete list of 377 journals that we evaluated for inclusion in this dataset. Data Processing To explore the current state of OA scholarly publishing in librarianship, we developed the following criteria: Journals must be published at the time of analysis, peer reviewed, and scoped to librarianship and must have articles or abstracts in English so that we could determine the journal’s scope. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 145 of 377 journals remained; however, the total number of journals analyzed is 133 because the DOAJ and LISA shared 12 journals. The researchers explored the open data policies, open access publication options, country of origin, publisher, and peer review process of each of the remaining 133 journals. The researchers also looked for article processing costs, type of Creative Commons licensing (open licenses that allow users to redistribute and sometimes remix intellectual property), and whether the journals were included in either the DOAJ and/or LISA index. References: Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002) http://www.soros.org/openaccess/

Journal of Animal Science Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Animal Science (JAS) is the premier journal for animal science and serves as the leading source of new knowledge and perspective in this area. JAS publishes more than 500 fully reviewed research articles, invited reviews, technical notes, and letters to the editor each year. Articles published in JAS encompass a broad range of research topics in animal production and fundamental aspects of genetics, nutrition, physiology, and preparation and utilization of animal products. Articles typically report research with beef cattle, companion animals, goats, horses, pigs, and sheep; however, studies involving other farm animals, aquatic and wildlife species, and laboratory animal species that address fundamental questions related to livestock and companion animal biology will be considered for publication. Official Journal of the American Society of Animal Science American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) Mission The American Society of Animal Science fosters the discovery, sharing and application of scientific knowledge concerning the care and responsible use of animals to enhance animal and human health and well-being. These core principles and beliefs are the foundation for ASAS and will guide the implementation of this 5-year strategic plan. Animals are essential to human life and well-being. The care and use of animals are held to the highest standards of integrity and professional ethics. Research and scientific information are communicated in an open, transparent, and dynamic manner. Career development for animal scientists, educators, and producers is essential to the viability of the allied and animal industries. Animal science and the production of animal-sourced foods must continually evolve to meet the needs and values of society. The History of ASAS The American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) celebrated its 100-year anniversary in 2008. During the first 100 years, ASAS broadened membership to more than 7000 members. ASAS developed diverse and dynamic membership programs, and fostered the growth of the premier journal in animal science and the premier animal science meetings. In 2008, the American Society of Animal Science celebrated 100 years of sharing great research and supporting science careers. ASAS was established on July 28, 1908, at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. A group of animal nutritionists, representing 13 state agricultural experiment stations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, met during a summer school session and formed a permanent organization with a focus on animal nutrition research. On November 26, 1908, the group met and formed an organization called the American Society of Animal Nutrition. Thirty-three charter members represented 17 state experiment stations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Canada. A constitution was adopted, and 4 committees were established: 1) experiments, 2) terminology, 3) methods of reporting results, and 4) affiliation. The objectives of the new society were: 1. to improve the quality of investigation in animal nutrition, 2. to promote more systematic and better correlated studies of feeding problems, and 3. to facilitate personal interaction between investigators in this field. The first professional papers were presented at the Livestock Exposition Hall in Chicago from November 27–29, 1909. At the business meeting, the membership voted to publish proceedings of the annual meeting representing the first journal publications. During the first year, 100 members joined the society. At the business meeting in 1912, efforts were made to broaden the membership base to include scientists from other disciplines. On November 30, 1915, the name of the society was changed from the American Society of Animal Nutrition to the American Society of Animal Production, and an amendment to the constitution was passed to include members interested in teaching, breeding, and management investigations as well as nutritionists. In addition, a committee on instruction was added. At that time there were 114 members. Growth in membership was almost continuous; by the golden anniversary year in 1958 there were 1,829 members. A second name change was approved at the 53rd annual business meeting in Chicago on November 24, 1961, when the official name became the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS). ASAS expanded to meet the diverse needs of its members by adding sections (Midwest, South, Northeast, and West) with their own meetings. In 1998, ASAS joined forces with its sister societies, the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) and the Poultry Science Association (PSA), to form the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) to help foster a voice for professional animal scientists. Even with the many changes in ASAS membership, it is unlikely that anyone could have envisioned the growth and change in membership demographics that occurred in the last 10 years. In 1998, about 40% of ASAS membership were also ADSA members. The ASAS membership was more than 75% men. There were few graduate student members, no undergraduate members and only 15% of ASAS members lived outside of the United States. One of the major goals of the 2008 strategic plan was to increase and diversify the ASAS membership. Today, ASAS enjoys a membership of more than 6,000 members, 30% from outside the United States, and almost 50:50 split in gender demographics, approximately 800 graduate students and 1,000 undergraduate student members. In the 2008 ASAS Strategic plan, we recognized that it was time to change one of the most fundamental roles of ASAS in the field of animal sciences and in society. In addition to providing science-based information to ASAS members, ASAS began to build an external voice to communicate and distribute information pertaining to the responsible use of animals in research, teaching, and production. At the direction of the 2008 ASAS Strategic Plan, ASAS initiated an autonomous science policy program governed by ASAS that works with many other groups, created AnimalSmart.com and the accompanying Junior Animal Science program, redesigned and distributed the Image Gallery, added a global scientific magazine Animal Frontiers, created an active and respected Snack and Fact program for Congressional staff in Washington D.C., and ensured an active presence of ASAS members on Capitol Hill. As ASAS moves forward, we need to continue these programs, add to their robustness, and ensure that the programs represent the needs of the global ASAS membership. The 2008, strategic plan helped ASAS grow and diversify its membership. An unintended consequence of this diversification was a change in the ASAS infrastructure. In 2014, ASAS sold its equity shares in FASS as FASS no longer met the growing needs of ASAS. Since 2008, technological advances have also helped change how ASAS communicates internally and externally. For example, ASAS has globalized our communications (i.e., webinars and virtual meetings), taken posters to a new level (i.e., ePosters), created an almost continuous flow of information to the membership worldwide (i.e., Taking Stock), made it possible to push information out in real time, and has diversified our publication portfolio (i.e., Journal of Animal Science, Animal Frontiers, Natural Science Education, and Translational Animal Science) and our publications model (i.e., integration of all journals into a Digital Library, traditional publication, open access, and open review). In addition, technology has helped us add new methods to facilitate scientific communication around the word (i.e., JASEdits). Vision for the Future As ASAS enters its second century, we are changing to adapt to current and future conditions and environments. ASAS will continue to be the world leader as a source of scientific information on the contributions of animals to food and fiber production. We recognize, however, that animals contribute greatly to enhancing the human life and wellbeing in a wide variety of ways, including companionship, recreation, and human aid. Therefore, the broader vision of ASAS is to be a diverse community of professionals recognized as the leading source of new knowledge and perspective on animals that enhance human life and well-being. ASAS facilitates global scientific exchange through innovative and inclusive venues. In the next century, we will look for new opportunities to partner with other professional organizations and non-traditional venues. We are working to become a facilitator of effective interactions among academia, industry, government agencies, and other stakeholders to reach consensus regarding science-based animal issues. Continued leadership in providing a scientific voice of animal science to the broader public is an inherent component in facilitating scientific exchange. To deal with the many contributions of animals to society, we recognize that it is vital for animal science professionals to be trained in a variety of disciplines. To this end, ASAS will provide member services and professional development opportunities in a proactive and accountable manner. Through our meetings, journal, and professional development opportunities, ASAS will be the training ground for future animal scientists. RG Journal Impact: 0.42 * *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 0.42 2017 0.30 2016 1.33 2015 2.33 2014 2.48 2013 2.33 2012 2.36 2011 2.35 2010 2.52 2009 2.70 2008 2.74 2007 2.14 2006 1.60 2005 1.36 Additional details Cited half-life 0.00 Immediacy index 0.43 Eigenfactor 0.02 Article influence 0.58 H Index 138 Website http://jas.fass.org Other titles Journal of animal science (Online), Journal of animal science OCLC 41472131

Scientific data is an important output of scientific research, and a part of scholarly communication. By establishing the data policy of journal, it have great significance to promoting the data sharing, data reuse, data citation and scientific research evaluation. By means of literature research and website research, the paper scanned the data policies operation status of 302 scientific journals that were selected as the leading journals, key journals, and echelon journals in Excellence Action Plan for China's STM Journals, and analyzed the data policy setting, and the festures of the policy, such as classification types ,data availability, and data citation.

A Novel Dataset of Legitimate and Predatory Journals

The growing popularity of Open Access Model has given rise to Predatory journals which publish counterfeit journals to abuse the open access model.

The Union Grant Commission(UGC) of India, published a list of Predatory Journals. The following Dataset was created using the journals list in and omitted by the UGC.

It consists of 203 labeled examples.

Label 0: Predatory Journals Label 1: Legitimate Journals

For further details, kindly refer to the pre-print copy of the research paper.

Supplementary data files associated with this study, which takes a stratified random sample of articles published in 2014 from the top 10 journals in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, as ranked by impact factor. Sampled articles were examined for their reporting of original data or reuse of prior data, and were coded for whether the data was publicly shared or otherwise made available to readers. Other characteristics such as the sharing of software code used for analysis and use of data citation and DOIs for data were examined. The study finds that data sharing practices are still relatively rare in these disciplines’ top journals, but that the disciplines have markedly different practices. Biology shares original data at the highest rate, and physics shares at the lowest rate. Overall, the study finds that only 13% of articles with original data published in 2014 make the data available to others.

For this dataset, scientific peer-reviewed articles by Tampere University researchers from the years 2020 and 2021 were extracted from the TUNICRIS. A random sample of 40 percent was taken from the listed 4,922 publications according to faculties and years. There were 2,085 analyzed articles, i.e. more than 42 percent of the total number.

To find Data Availability Statements, articles were opened one by one and searched for mentions of research data and its availability. For each article, it was written down whether DAS existed and where in the article it was located. From the contents of DAS, information about data availability, location, openness and possible restrictions on use was written down.

Dataset also includes information about the journals and publications taken from TUNICRIS.

The prevalence of DAS and data openness were examined in relation to different variables. Tampere University faculty information has been removed from the dataset.

Related slides: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7655892

Related article (in Finnish): Toikko, T., & Kylmälä, K. (2023). Tutkimusdatan saatavuustiedot tieteellisissä artikkeleissa: Raportti Data Availability Statementien käytöstä Tampereen yliopistossa. Informaatiotutkimus, 42(1-2), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.126098

International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research FAQ - ResearchHelpDesk - International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research - IJCMR, an official publication of International Society for Contemporary Medical Research (Registered under Government of India, Society Registration Act No - 21, 1860), is a peer reviewed, international, print and online, open access journal with MONTHLY (since January, 2016) publication. It is a multidisciplinary journal to provide a forum for the presentation and criticism of original, innovative and thought provocative ideas in medical and allied specialties. IJCMR publishes new, challenging and radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. The types of article accepted include original articles, review articles, case reports, and letters to the editor. Clinical microbiology relevant immunology, pathophysiology, genetics, epidemiological, and genomics studies are also welcome. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research is an internationally targeted official publication. All articles have to be original articles that have not been published elsewhere or are being considered for publication in other journals. All articles submitted will be peer reviewed by experts. Receipt of the manuscript will be acknowledged by email. Every effort will be made to complete the review process within 2 weeks and communicated to the corresponding author. Papers should be submitted to ijcmr.journal@gmail.com. The Editorial board will strive for the quality of the journal and will also index the journal in various indexing bodies and the information will be updated on the journal website from time to time. We welcome all your submissions. I hope you will consider IJCMR for your next submission. Periodicity of the journal - Quarterly (Since inception to 2015 June (Volume 2; Issue 2) Bimonthly (Since 2015 July (Volume 2; Issue 3)) Monthly (Since January 2016 (Volume 3; Issue 1)) Scope of Journal The journal covers all aspects of medical sciences from genes to humans. Articles reporting clinical observations, experimental studies and theoretical concepts are all welcome, and especially welcome high quality review articles from distinguished authors, and original articles reporting new findings in medical and allied sciences. The journal covers technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in the fields of Science and allied specialties. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference. Journal editors, welcome thought provoking papers on areas listed above. Decisions about papers will be communicated to authors within 3 weeks of submission. IJCMR publishes original research work that contributes significantly to further the scientific knowledge and research in Medical, Dental, Pharmaceutical Sciences etc.. and aims to provide a platform to researchers to publish their articles. It comprises peer- reviewed articles as its core material which includes original research papers, case reports and review articles as well. We encourage the submission of manuscripts that cross disciplines and also studies that address universal problems of human health. Fields Anesthesiology, Anatomy, Animal Research, Ayurveda, Sidha & Unani (All Branches) Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Cardiology, Community, Dermatology, Dentistry (All Branches), Education, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Ethics, Ear Nose and Throat, Forensic, Gastroenterology, Genetics, Haematology, Health Management and Policy, Homeopathy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Nephrology / Renal, Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, Nutrition, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Neonatology, Pharmacology, Pharmacy (All branches) Physiology, Pathology, Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry/Mental Health, Rehabilitation, Radiology, Statistics, Surgery, Yoga and alternative therapies.

This dataset is about books. It has 4 rows and is filtered where the book is Writing for academic journals. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

The extent to which researchers follow the recommendation write introduction sections as short and informative as possible is unknown. Although it is evident that many authors do not follow this recommendation, the extent to which researchers follow it is unknown. Here, we investigated the degree of relative prolixity among 101 journals with different CiteScore™ classified in the ‘Pharmaceutical Science’ category. We recorded the number of characters (including spaces), paragraphs and citations in their introduction sections. Based on these data, relative prolixity was calculated as the ratio between the number of characters and the number of citations contained in the introductory section of original articles.

Cognitive maps examples for behavioural science journal

The database includes information on Russian journals published by Federal universities, National Research universities and Basic universities and covers such aspects as indexing information in different bibliographic databases, volumes of indexed papers in 2018-2022, rankings in different databases, subject categories, geographical locations, numbers of issues per year, list of founders, journals sites, etc. (in total 59 variables).

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).