应用图书馆员自创的评估工具确定开放获取图书馆科学期刊的质量和可信度

M. Albro, Jessica L. Serrao, Christopher D. Vidas, Jenessa M. McElfresh, K. M. Sheffield, Megan Palmer
{"title":"应用图书馆员自创的评估工具确定开放获取图书馆科学期刊的质量和可信度","authors":"M. Albro, Jessica L. Serrao, Christopher D. Vidas, Jenessa M. McElfresh, K. M. Sheffield, Megan Palmer","doi":"10.1353/pla.2024.a916990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals.","PeriodicalId":516609,"journal":{"name":"portal: Libraries and the Academy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying Librarian-Created Evaluation Tools to Determine Quality and Credibility of Open Access Library Science Journals\",\"authors\":\"M. Albro, Jessica L. Serrao, Christopher D. Vidas, Jenessa M. McElfresh, K. M. Sheffield, Megan Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pla.2024.a916990\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract:This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"portal: Libraries and the Academy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"portal: Libraries and the Academy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916990\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"portal: Libraries and the Academy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916990","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了期刊质量和可信度评价工具在图书馆学出版物中的应用。研究人员使用图书馆员开发和发布的两种评价工具,调查了 48 种包含开放存取内容的同行评审图书馆学期刊的质量和可信度属性。研究结果确定了图书馆学期刊常见的正面和负面属性,比较了两种评价工具的结果,并讨论了它们的易用性和局限性。总之,结果表明,虽然图书馆学期刊并不像图书馆员用来告诫其他研究人员的那样具有令人担忧的特征,但出版商可以在几个方面提高其期刊的质量和可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Applying Librarian-Created Evaluation Tools to Determine Quality and Credibility of Open Access Library Science Journals
abstract:This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信