Chengjun Zhang , ZhengJu Ren , Gaofeng Xiang , Wenbin Yu , Zeyu Xu , Jin Liu , Yadang Chen
{"title":"科技期刊出版垄断现象的综合比较分析","authors":"Chengjun Zhang , ZhengJu Ren , Gaofeng Xiang , Wenbin Yu , Zeyu Xu , Jin Liu , Yadang Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing number of academic practitioners has resulted in a significantly increased volume of scientific papers, attracting considerable interest among researchers examining this correlation. However, little research has been devoted to the phenomenon of scientists monopolizing authorship in academic journals. This study thus introduces the term Publication Monopoly (PM) to describe this effect. The study refers to the prolific authors as Monopoly Authors. In addition, it proposes a Monopoly Index to assess PM severity. For each journal, the Monopoly Contribution (MC) quantifies the impact of Monopoly Authors. Using the Open Academic Graph dataset, our analysis explores the prevalence of PM and the corresponding MC in selected journals and academic fields. The findings demonstrate a positive relationship between the number of articles published and the likelihood of PM occurrence in most journals. Furthermore, fields relying heavily on laboratory environments or specialized equipment are particularly susceptible to PM. Additionally, once a journal becomes entrenched in PM, it is challenging to alleviate this phenomenon over time. Our study of PM aimed to prompt academic practitioners to carefully consider the likelihood of acceptance in journals characterized by high PM levels. Moreover, the study encourages journals to reconsider their need to accept more articles from Monopoly Authors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 1","pages":"Article 101628"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comprehensive comparative analysis of publication monopoly phenomenon in scientific journals\",\"authors\":\"Chengjun Zhang , ZhengJu Ren , Gaofeng Xiang , Wenbin Yu , Zeyu Xu , Jin Liu , Yadang Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The increasing number of academic practitioners has resulted in a significantly increased volume of scientific papers, attracting considerable interest among researchers examining this correlation. However, little research has been devoted to the phenomenon of scientists monopolizing authorship in academic journals. This study thus introduces the term Publication Monopoly (PM) to describe this effect. The study refers to the prolific authors as Monopoly Authors. In addition, it proposes a Monopoly Index to assess PM severity. For each journal, the Monopoly Contribution (MC) quantifies the impact of Monopoly Authors. Using the Open Academic Graph dataset, our analysis explores the prevalence of PM and the corresponding MC in selected journals and academic fields. The findings demonstrate a positive relationship between the number of articles published and the likelihood of PM occurrence in most journals. Furthermore, fields relying heavily on laboratory environments or specialized equipment are particularly susceptible to PM. Additionally, once a journal becomes entrenched in PM, it is challenging to alleviate this phenomenon over time. Our study of PM aimed to prompt academic practitioners to carefully consider the likelihood of acceptance in journals characterized by high PM levels. Moreover, the study encourages journals to reconsider their need to accept more articles from Monopoly Authors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724001408\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724001408","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comprehensive comparative analysis of publication monopoly phenomenon in scientific journals
The increasing number of academic practitioners has resulted in a significantly increased volume of scientific papers, attracting considerable interest among researchers examining this correlation. However, little research has been devoted to the phenomenon of scientists monopolizing authorship in academic journals. This study thus introduces the term Publication Monopoly (PM) to describe this effect. The study refers to the prolific authors as Monopoly Authors. In addition, it proposes a Monopoly Index to assess PM severity. For each journal, the Monopoly Contribution (MC) quantifies the impact of Monopoly Authors. Using the Open Academic Graph dataset, our analysis explores the prevalence of PM and the corresponding MC in selected journals and academic fields. The findings demonstrate a positive relationship between the number of articles published and the likelihood of PM occurrence in most journals. Furthermore, fields relying heavily on laboratory environments or specialized equipment are particularly susceptible to PM. Additionally, once a journal becomes entrenched in PM, it is challenging to alleviate this phenomenon over time. Our study of PM aimed to prompt academic practitioners to carefully consider the likelihood of acceptance in journals characterized by high PM levels. Moreover, the study encourages journals to reconsider their need to accept more articles from Monopoly Authors.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.