Research on the discourse power evaluation of academic journals from the perspective of multiple fusion: Taking Medicine,General and Internal journals as an example

Abstract

In the open science environment, this article evaluates the discourse power of academic journals from the perspective of multiple integration. It is conducive to scientific research management and provides a reference for enriching and perfecting the evaluation theory and indicators system of academic journals. Based on the theory of evaluation science, discourse power theory and communication theory, first, this article discusses the basic issues of the discourse power evaluation for academic journals. It defines the academic discourse power and the discourse power of academic journals. It is proposed that the discourse power of academic journals is composed of discourse influence and discourse leading. Discourse influence is composed of discourse influence ability and discourse power, and discourse leading is composed of social media discourse, news and policy discourse, encyclopaedia discourse, peer-review discourse and video discourse leading. This article explores the formation process and operation mechanism of the discourse power for academic journals. Then, this article constructs the discourse power evaluation model of academic journals. Second, this article integrates multi-source heterogeneous data, then adopts correlation analysis, integrated factor analysis, entropy weight method, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and two-dimensional four-quadrant mapping method to conduct empirical research on the discourse power evaluation of Medicine, General and Internal journals from the perspectives of multi-dimensions, multi-factors, multi-indicators and multi-methods fusion. The results show that the research on the discourse power evaluation for academic journals based on the theory, method and application logic is practical, comprehensive and reliable.

Keywords

Academic journals altmetrics discourse influence discourse leading discourse power evaluation scientometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). Scholarly publishing – the facts, https://www.stm-assoc.org/2021_10_19_STM_Global_Brief_2021_Economics_and_Market_Size.pdf (accessed 20 March 2022).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO recommendation on open science, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en (accessed 20 March 2022).

FOSTER. Facilitate open science training for European research, https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/about (accessed 20 March 2022).

Bornmann

The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review. Scientometrics 2012; 91: 857–862.

Zhang

Gunnar

Combination of scientometrics and peer-review in research evaluation: international experiences and inspirations. J China Soc Sci Tech Inform 2020; 39(8): 806–816.

Wicherts

JM.

Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One 2016; 11(1): e0147913.

Bradford

SC.

Sources of information on specific subjects 1934. J Inf Sci 1985; 10: 176–180.

De Solla Price

. Networks of scientific papers. Science 1965; 149: 510–515.

Garfield

Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955; 122: 108–111.

10.

Garfield

Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972; 178: 471–479.

11.

Leydesdorff

Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2008; 59: 278–287.

12.

Garfield

Long-term

vs.

short-term journal impact: does it matter?

Physiologist 1998; 41: 113–115.

13.

Leydesdorff

Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics 2012; 92: 355–365.

14.

Życzkowski

Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices. Scientometrics 2010; 85: 301–315.

15.

Moed

HF.

Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J Informetr 2010; 4: 265–277.

16.

Braun

Glänzel

Schubert

A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 2006; 69: 169–173.

17.

Vinkler

The π-index: a new indicator for assessing scientific impact. J Inf Sci 2009; 35: 602–612.

18.

Zhao

Wang

Evaluation and comparison of influence in international Open Access journals between China and USA. Scientometrics 2019; 120: 1091–1110.

19.

Piwowar

Value all research products. Nature 2013; 493: 159.

20.

Sugimoto

Work

Larivière

et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 2017; 68(9): 2037–2062.

21.

Loach

Evans

TS.

Ranking journals using altmetrics. In: Proceedings of the ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, 29 June–3 July 2015, pp. 89–94. Belgium: Int soc scientometrics & informetrics-issikatholieke univ leuven.

22.

Zhao

Wang

Liu

et al. Research on the impact evaluation of academic journals based on altmetrics and citation indicators. Proc Assoc Inform Sci Technol 2019; 56: 336–345.

23.

Zhao

Wang

Research on impact evaluation of academic journals from multidimensional perspective. Libr Hi Tech 2020; 38: 458–478.

24.

Harris

ZS.

Discourse analysis. Language 1952; 28: 1–30.

25.

Foucault

Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

26.

Research and revelation of the all round evaluation of the quality of journals in library sciences. J Libr Sci China 2013; 39(04): 83–92.

27.

China’s research-evaluation revamp should not mean fewer international collaborations. Nature 2020; 579: 8.

28.

Mallapaty

China bans cash rewards for publishing papers. Nature 2020; 579: 18.

29.

Cyranoski

China splashes millions on hundreds of home-grown journals. Nature 2019; 576: 346–347.

30.

The Declaration. San Francisco declaration on research assessment, https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed 21 March 2022).

31.

Hicks

Wouters

Waltman

et al. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 2015; 520: 429–431.

32.

Wouters

Sugimoto

Lariviere

et al. Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal. Nature 2019; 569: 621–623.

33.

Foucault

Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977.

34.

Schumann

KF.

Book reviews: Michel Foucault: discipline and punish. The birth of the prison 1977, London: Allen Lane. Organ Stud 1980; 1: 200–201.

35.

Zheng

Academic discourse right/power and the development of Chinese sociology. Soc Sci China 2011; 32: 92–105.

36.

Zhang

Wang

Liu

Opportunities, challenges, and countermeasures for China to develop world-class science and technology journals. Chin Sci Bull 2020; 65: 771–779.

37.

Guo

Zhao

Sun

Evaluation of academic papers impact based on scientific communication path: a case study of Chinese international academic papers in social sciences. J China Soc Sci Tech Inform 2020; 39: 357–366.

38.

Wang

Zhao

RY.

Research on the relationship between discourse leading indicators and citation counts based on altmetrics: a case study of Chinese academic journals in English. Inform Stud: Theor Appl 2021; 44: 10–16.

39.

Zhang

Chen

Wang

et al. The study of informal academic communication among scientists based on the platform of Internet: the quantitative analysis based on the blog data collected from ScienceNet. J China Soc Sci Tech Inform 2015; 34: 754–764.

40.

Spearman

The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 1987; 100: 441–471.

41.

Chen

Song

Zhou

et al. Study on the factors affecting the citation frequency of papers from the perspective of bibliometrics: comment on the relationship between usage and citation. J Inform 2019; 38: 96–104.

42.

Xie

Cheng

et al. The relationship between cultural capital and the academic impact of journal articles. J China Soc Sci Tech Inform 2019; 38: 943–953.

43.

Sheng

Correlation analysis among CiteScore, CiteScore Percentile, and common journal evaluation indexes. Chin J Sci Tech Period 2018; 29: 605–611.

44.

Jaynes

ET.

Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys Rev 1957; 106: 620–630.

45.

Feng

Zhou

Research on the comprehensive evaluation of academic journals based on entropy weight TOPSIS and factor analysis. Libr Inform Serv 2018; 62: 84–95.

46.

Xiong

Chen

Improvement of academic journal evaluation based on factor analysis and TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligence 2016; 35: 196–200.

47.

Qiu

Management decision entropy and its application. Beijing, China: China Electric Power Publishing House, 2011.

48.

Hwang

Yoon

Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 1981.

49.

Haseli

Sheikh

Sana

SS.

Base-criterion on multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 2020; 15: 79–88.

50.

Abouhawwash

Hybrid evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm for helping multi-criterion decision makers. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 2021; 16: 94–106.

51.

De Lima Silva

Ferreira

De Almeida-Filho

AT.

A new preference disaggregation TOPSIS approach applied to sort corporate bonds based on financial statements and expert’s assessment. Expert Syst Appl 2020; 152: 113369.

52.

Unutmaz Durmuşoğlu

Durmuşoğlu

. A TOPSIS model for understanding the authors choice of journal selection. Scientometrics 2021; 126: 521–543.

53.

Tornberg

Moezinia

Wei

et al. Assessing the dissemination of COVID-19 articles across social media with altmetric and plumx metrics: correlational study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e21408.

54.

Boetto

Fantini

Gangemi

et al. Using altmetrics for detecting impactful research in quasi-zero-day time-windows: the case of COVID-19. Scientometrics 2021; 126: 1189–1215.

55.

Aletaha

Soltani

Dokhani

Evaluating obesity publications: from bibliometrics to altmetrics. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2021; 20: 391–405.

56.

Hou

How the high-impact papers formed? A study using data from social media and citation. Scientometrics 2020; 125: 2597–2615.

57.

Garcovich

Sucar

et al. The online attention to orthodontic research: an altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018. Prog Orthod 2020; 21: 31.

58.

Edakar

MAM

Shehata

AMK

. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 papers on the social web: an altmetric study. Glob Knowl Mem Commun 2022; 71: 1–26.

59.

Haley

MR.

A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 2019; 71: 370–373.

60.

Chang

Bibliometric-based study of scientist academic genealogy. J Data Inform Sci 2021; 6(3): 146–163.

61.

Sugimoto

CR.

Scientific success by numbers. Nature 2021; 593: 30–31.

62.

Cui

Fang

Wang

XW.

Article promotion on Twitter and Facebook: a case study of Cell journal. J Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 15 December 2021. DOI: 10.1177/01655515211059772.

63.

Zhang

Sun

Zhang

et al. Can promotion on WeChat official accounts improve scholarly journals’ academic impact? A micro-level correlation comparison study. Learn Publ 2022; 35: 163–174.

64.

Vilchez-Roman

Vara-Horna

Usage, content and citation in open access publication: any interaction effects?

Scientometrics 2021; 126(12): 9457–9476.