Editors’ Perceptions and Views on Journal Quality: The Case of Iran’s Editors-in-Chief
Libri, ISSN: 0024-2667, Vol: 73, Issue: 2, Page: 125-137
2023
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
The study aimed to determine the perceptions and views of Iranian editors about the quality of journals, articles, the responsibilities of the editorial team, review and the review process, copyright and intellectual property, consequences of open access (OA), and influential factors in the scientific life cycle of a journal. The study adopted a qualitative approach using interviews. Respondents included 13 editors of journals. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used for the interview. The results showed that the editor’s main tasks were to supervise the reviewers’ performance, initially control the article, and send it to the reviewers. Participants believed that compliance with professional standards was the main factor influencing the scientific quality of publications. Their understanding of the ethical codes includes impartiality and confidentiality in evaluation and publication. In light of the fact that reviewers often perform superficial reviews, the editors viewed them as poor-quality. They stated that intellectual property is not valued and observed in many cases. Some participants mentioned the negative consequences of open access (OA). However, they think OA bears more positive than adverse outcomes. Observance of these factors is ultimately essential for the survival of a scientific journal.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know