An analytical study of Editorial and Publication Policies of the Open Access Journals of Library and Information Science

Authors

  • Gulam Jilani Indian Maritime University Kolkata
  • Prof. Swapna Banerjee University of Calcutta

Keywords:

Publication Policy, Editorial Policy, Citation style, Review Process, Open Access, Publication Ethics, Archiving Policy

Abstract

Background: Open-access journals of LIS have been a key medium for library professionals and academicians to publish their research results. The publication policy of the journals is a significant aspect for the authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers, which becomes guidelines to assist all the stakeholders’ work under policies.

Purpose: The study is conducted to find out the status of the publication policy and editorial policies of Open Access journals of Library and Information Science which are indexed by publishers from various countries in the SCOPUS, Web of science, UGC Care List, DOAJ, etc. The study was conducted to find out and assess the indexing of OA journals in the citation database and their countries, factors of publication and editorial policy, periodicity, archiving policy, publication fees, and ethical perspectives in the societal context.

Design/methodology/approach: The study was initiated by the selection of 151 OA journals of library and information science that are indexed in the citation database, UGC Care List, DOAJ, etc., and after scrutinizing the websites, the database was worked out in an Excel sheet made for this purpose. This is needed because the policies differ from journal to journal, and researchers are often confused as to which one would be the best to follow for their research results.

Findings: The USA has indexed the highest number of 21.38% of OA journals in the LIS database. It was found that 82.12% of OA journals preferred the “Double Blind Peer Review” review process; the CC-BY copyright licensing policy is adopted by 46.36% of OA journals; more than 88.74% of journals do not charge for article processing; and 93.37% of OA journals levied an article submission charge. 58.94% of OA journals have a plagiarism policy that ensures the purity and authenticity of the publications; however, it is very low and needs to be adopted for the integrity of the research.

Practical implications: In order to conduct a study that was dispersed among all journals separately and make use of the material that was available to stakeholders—researchers, librarians, academicians, etc.—the authors faced the issue of gathering all the necessary information in one location. The analysis of the LIS journals served as the study's sole foundation.

Originality/value: In order to evaluate trends, kinds, and natures of policy patterns, this research shows how to analyze editorial and publication policies in a thorough and instructive manner. In order to support scientists, academics, and researchers in their work as they prepare research articles for journal publication, it is also necessary to develop inclusive policies.

Author Biographies

  • Gulam Jilani, Indian Maritime University Kolkata

    Library

    Assistant Librarian

  • Prof. Swapna Banerjee, University of Calcutta

    Department of Library and Information Science

    Professor

References

About Sherpa Romeo - v2.sherpa. (2023). https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/about.html. Accessed on 11-09-2023

Ahmad, R., Afzal, M. T., & Qadir, M. A. (2017). Pattern Analysis of Citation-Anchors in Citing Documents for Accurate Identification of In-Text Citations. IEEE Access, 5, 5819–5828. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2689925

Armbruster, C. (2011). Open access policy implementation: First results compared. Learned Publishing, 24(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110409

Borrego, A. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(June), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558

Bosch, X., Hernández, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marušić, A. (2012). Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals. PLoS ONE, 7(12), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051928

Castellà, C. O., López-Borrull, A., & Abadal, E. (2016). The challenges facing library and information science journals: Editors’ opinions. Learned Publishing, 29(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1016

CC Licensing. (2023). Creative Commons Licensing. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (Accessed on 11-09-2023)

Chaudhuri, J., & Baker, S. (2015). Identifying open access articles within the top ten closed access LIS journals: A global perspective. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2015(1), 1–15.

COPE. (2023). Committee on Publication Ethics. Web Page. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices (Accessed on 11-09-2023)

Dove, C., Chan, T. M., Thoma, B., Roland, D., & Bruijns, S. R. (2019). A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 9(3), 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2019.01.015

Dunn, A. G., Coiera, E., Mandl, K. D., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2016). Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7

Feige, E. L. (1975). The Consequences of Journal Editorial Policies and a Suggestion for Revision. Journal of Political Economy, 83(6), 1291–1296. https://doi.org/10.1086/260400

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

Gibson, D. S., & O’Hanlon, R. (2020). The Current Conflict of Interest Landscape and the Potential Role of Information Professionals in Supporting Research Integrity. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 20(3), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2020.1778970

Gulley, N. (2013). Creative commons: Challenges and solutions for researchers; A publisher’s perspective of copyright in an open access environment. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 26(2), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.107

Hanlon, A., & Ramirez, M. (2011). Asking for permission: A survey of copyright workflows for institutional repositories. Portal, 11(2), 683–702. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0015

Harries, A. D., Kumar, A. M. V, Satyanarayana, S., Bissell, K., Hinderaker, S. G., Edginton, M., Reid, A. J., & Zachariah, R. (2013). References for scientifi c papers: why not standardise to one global style? Public Health Action, 3(3), 255–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.5588/pha.13.0066

Hong, S. T. (2017). Plagiarism continues to affect scholarly journals. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(2), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.183

ICMJE. (2023). International Committee of Medical Journals Editors. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/ (Accessed on 11-09-2023)

Jain, V. K., Iyengar, K. P., & Vaishya, R. (2021). Article processing charge may be a barrier to publishing. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 14, 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.10.039

Jayaraj, M. M., Pinto, A. J., & Pachiyappan, S. (2022). Article Processing Charges and Their Impact in Open Access Publishing. In Handbook of Research on the Global View of Open Access and Scholarly Communications (pp. 330–341). IGI-Global Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9805-4.ch016

Jilani, G., & Ahmad, N. (2021). Role of librarians and information scientists in plagiarism control: A study of NIRF ranked engineering institutions ranked in 2020. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 41(3), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.41.3.16716

Karaali, G. (2013). The Brave New World Of Open Access & Creative Commons : A Humanistic Experiment In Mathematical Publishing. Proceedings of the 2013 AMS Special Session on Topics and Issues in Electronic Publishing, 11–31.

Kim, M. (2007). The creative commons and copyright protection in the digital era: Uses of creative commons licenses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00392.x

Koley, M., & Lala, K. (2022). Are journal archiving and embargo policies impeding the success of India’s open access policy? Learned Publishing, 1441, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1441

Kumar, A., Bansal, A., & Kanungo, P. D. (2014). Unfolding the 33 years saga of DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 61(3), 203–211.

Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. In Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (pp. 1–353). https://doi.org/10.17226/12598

Lo, B., Wolf, L. E., & Berkeley, A. (2001). Conflict-of-Interest Policies for Investigators in Clinical Trials. Obstetric and Gynecologic Survey, 56(6), 357. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200106000-00020

Malički, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., & Ter Riet, G. (2019). Journals’ instructions to authors in 2017: a cross sectional study across all disciplines. PLoS ONE, 14(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157

Masic, I. (2013). The importance of proper citation of references in biomedical articles. Acta Informatica Medica, 21(3), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2013.21.148-155

Munshi, U. M. (2008). Guest Editorial. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(April 2005), 3–6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.1.172

Osborne, N. J., Payne, D., & Newman, M. L. (2009). Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(12), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160903318343

Parker, M. (2013). The ethics of open access publishing. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(16), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-16

Peter A. Lawrence. (2003). The politics of publication: Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature, 422(1), 259–261. http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/

Rodrigues, M. L., Savino, W., & Goldenberg, S. (2022). Article-processing charges as a barrier for science in low-to-medium income regions. Memorias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 117(May), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760220064

Schroeder, M. J., & Aloè, C. (2021). Double blind peer-review in philosophies. Philosophies, 6(2), 6020036. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6020036

Schulman, K., Sulmasy, D. P., & Roney, D. (1994). Ethics, Economics, and the Publication Policies of Major Medical Journals. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020080023

Shah, U. U., & Gul, S. (2019). LOCKSS, CLOCKSS & PORTICO: A Look Into Digital Preservation Policies. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal), 43(12), 2–14.

Shea, N., & Prasad, V. (2013). Open issues with open access publication. In American Journal of Medicine (Vol. 126, Issue 7, pp. 563–564). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.11.027

Supak-Smolcic, V., & Simundic, A.-M. (2015). Research integrity corner Biochemia Medica ’ s editorial policy on authorship. Biochemia Medica, 25(3), 320–323. https://doi.org/http://dx .doi .org/10 .11613/BM .2015 .031

Todorova, T., Trencheva, T., Kurbanoğlu, S., Doğan, G., Horvat, A., & Boustany, J. (2014). A multinational study on copyright literacy competencies of LIS professionals. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 492(April 2016), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_15

Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(48), 12708–12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Utrobičić, A., Šimić, J., Malički, M., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2014). Composition of editorial boards and peer review policies of Croatian journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. Learned Publishing, 27(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140103

Vishwakarma, P., & Mukherjee, B. (2014). Developing qualitative indicators for journal evaluation: Case study of library science journals of SAARC countries. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 34(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.34.4968

Wager, E. (2012). The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Objectives and achievements 1997-2012. Presse Medicale, 41(9 PART1), 861–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2012.02.049

Why CLOCKSS? – CLOCKSS. (n.d.).

Xia, J., Gilchrist, S. B., Smith, N. X. P., Kingery, J. A., Radecki, J. R., Marcia, L., Harrison, K. C., Ashby, M. L., & Alyson, J. (2012). A Review of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate Policies. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(1), 85–102.

Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Medicine, 5(10), 1418–1422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201

Downloads

Published

2024-10-07