The outflow of manuscripts has led to a decline in the quality of local Chinese journals, and the emergence of international publishers has led to the increasingly serious problem of article outflow from Chinese authors. This article is to investigate the journal submission intention from Chinese authors’ perspectives in the ‘Medicine, General & Internal’ category classified by the Web of Science database, which can help Chinese journals develop competitive marketing strategies to attract high-quality domestic research papers to be published in Chinese journals, thus improving the international influence of Chinese journals. This article selected the four most possible influencing determinants of medical journal submission intention based on the literature as independent variables, namely subjective norm, perceived corporate social responsibility, perceived engagement and perceived speed. Meanwhile, this article also examined gender as the moderator in finding the strengths and weaknesses in the relationship. The data collected from 327 have been analysed using IBM SPSS and SmartPLS software. We found that three selected independent variables (i.e. subjective norm, perceived engagement and perceived speed) are significant predictors of submission intention to the journal. Meanwhile, gender was found to moderate the relationship between subjective norm and perceived engagement and submission intention, making use of the product indicator approach, but it cannot regulate the relationship between perceived speed and submission intention.
CheDJ.Impact of academic appraisal mechanism on scientific journals periodicals development. Acta Editol2019; 31(Suppl. 2): 9–11.
3.
DeMariaAN.The role of a medical journal. Struct Heart2022; 6(4): 100079.
4.
GaoJYinYAMyersKR, et al. Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nat Commun2021; 12(1): 6188.
5.
ShapiraP.Scientific publications and COVID-19 ‘research pivots’ during the pandemic. Acad Manage Proc2021; 1: 13568.
6.
Aviv-ReuvenSRosenfeldA.Publication patterns’ changes due the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis. Scientometrics2021; 126(8): 6761–6784.
7.
CaiXFryCVWagnerCS.International collaboration during the COVID-19 crisis: Autumn 2020 developments. Scientometrics2021; 126(4): 3683–3692.
8.
HeJLiuXLuX, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends. BMJ Glob Health2023; 8(4): e011514.
9.
AjzenIFishbeinM.Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980, pp. 70-75.
10.
RauschTMKopplinCS.Bridge the gap: consumers’ purchase intention and behavior regarding sustainable clothing. J Clean Prod2021; 278: 123882.
11.
SharmaKAswalCPaulJ.Factors affecting green purchase behavior: a systematic literature review. Bus Strateg Environ2023; 32(4): 2078–2092.
12.
AwadallahEElgharbawyA.Utilizing the theory of reasoned action in understanding students’ choice in selecting accounting as major. Account Educ2021; 30(1): 86–106.
13.
AjzenI.The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec1991; 50(2): 179–211.
14.
HosenMChongYLLauLS.Sharing knowledge through publishing research work in indexed journals: a vision of Malaysian private universities. Asia-pac Soc Sci Rev2020; 20(4): 44–62.
15.
BjörkBHolmströmJ.Benchmarking scientific journals from the submitting author’s viewpoint. Learn Publ2006; 19(2): 147–155.
16.
XuXXieJSunJ, et al. Factors affecting authors’ manuscript submission behaviour: a systematic review. Learn Publ2023; 36(2): 285–298.
17.
WangHXuLF.Influence mechanisms of the submission behavior of scientific journals: from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. Chin J Sci Tech Period2022; 33(1): 49–57.
18.
ZhangRGaoTLuoFY, et al. Motivation of scientific researchers to select specific journals for publication: from the perspective of grounded theory. Chin J Sci Tech Period2021; 32(9): 1158–1165.
19.
ShanZZhaoRQLiuSH.Factors on authors’ intention to submit to medical journals: the case of journal of medical research. Sci-tech Publ2021; 6: 146–152.
20.
MoksnessLOlsenSO.Trust versus perceived quality in scholarly publishing: a personality-attitude-intention approach. Coll Res Libr2018; 79(5): 671–684.
21.
MoksnessLOlsenSO.Perceived quality and self-identity in scholarly publishing. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2019; 71(3): 338–348.
22.
MassoroZZAdewaleNT.Influence of attitude, subjective norms and personal innovativeness on intention to use open access journals: a case of agricultural research institutes. Lib Philos Pract2019; 11: 2484.
23.
ParkJH.Motivations for web-based scholarly publishing: do scientists recognize open availability as an advantage?J Scholarly Publ2009; 40(4): 343–369.
24.
FauziMATanCNThurasamyR.Evaluating academics’ knowledge sharing intentions in Malaysian public universities. Malays J Libr Inf Sci2019; 24(1): 123–143.
25.
LeeJYangKOhD.Factors influencing the choice of a publication venue in library and information science. Learn Publ2020; 33(3): 323–332.
26.
GundalaRRNawazNBoobalanK, et al. Does gender moderate the purchase intention of organic foods? Theory of reasoned action. Heliyon2022; 8(9): e10478.
27.
SalamMTSmithKTMehboobF.Purchase intention for green brands among Pakistani millennials. Soc Responsib J2022; 18(3): 469–483.
28.
ChawlaDJoshiH.The moderating role of gender and age in the adoption of mobile wallet. Foresight2020; 22(4): 483–504.
29.
BaldickHJJangSS.Spending the night with strangers while traveling? Examining the antecedents of shared room booking through Airbnb. Int J Contemp Hosp M2020; 32(12): 3853–3871.
30.
PunniyamoorthyMAsumpthaJA.A study on knowledge sharing behavior among academicians in India. Knowl Manag E-learn2019; 11(1): 95–113.
31.
KimY.An empirical study of biological scientists’ article sharing through ResearchGate: examining attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs. Aslib J Inform Manag2018; 70(5): 458–480.
32.
PeslakACeccucciWSendallP. An empirical study of social networking behavior using theory of reasoned action. In: Conference for Information Systems Applied Research, Wilmington, NC, 2011, Paper No. V4 1807, pp. 1–13.
33.
SambeMTRaphaelGO.Acceptance and adoption of open access publication (OAP) in university libraries in South East Nigeria. J Educ Pract2015; 6(31): 7–14.
Sánchez-TornéIMorán-ÁlvarezJCPérez-LópezJA.The importance of corporate social responsibility in achieving high corporate reputation. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma2020; 27: 2692–2700.
37.
LundbergGD.Goals for the journal. JAMA1982; 248(5): 553.
38.
LundbergGD.The social responsibility of medical journal editing. J Gen Intern Med2007; 2: 415–419.
39.
HanLNiJAnR, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on academic communication and the response of academic publishing institutions. Chin J Sci Tech Period2021; 32(2): 214–220.
BlindKPohlischJZiA.Publishing, patenting, and standardization: motives and barriers of scientists. Res Policy2018; 47(7): 1185–1197.
42.
RowlandsI.Electronic journals and user behavior: a review of recent research. Libr Inform Sci Res2007; 29(3): 369–396.
43.
MadhugiriVSVenkatesanS.Does reader engagement with neurosurgery journal websites correlate with the number of citations received by articles?Neurol India2024; 72(2): 352–357.
Nature. Coronavirus pandemic: nature’s pledge to you. Nature2020; 579: 471–472.
46.
HosenMChongYLLauL.The role of salient beliefs influence on Malaysian academics’ intention to publish in indexed journals. Malays J Libr Inf Sci2021; 26(1): 63–81.
47.
DjupePASmithAESokheyAE.Explaining gender in the journals: how submission practices affect publication patterns in political science. Polit Sci Polit2019; 52(1): 71–77.
48.
ClosaCMouryCNovakovaZR, et al. Mind the (submission) gap: EPSR gender data and female authors publishing perceptions. Eur Polit Sci2020; 19(2): 1–15.
49.
SquazzoniFBravoGGrimaldoF, et al. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLoS ONE2021; 16(10): e0257919.
50.
AmirkhanyanHKrawczykMWilamowskiM.Do male and female authors employ different journal choice strategies?Scientometrics2023; 128: 5905–5928.
51.
HairJFSarstedtMHopkinsLM, et al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). An emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev2014; 26(2): 106–121.
52.
CohenJ.A power primer. Psychol Bull1992; 112: 155–159.
53.
LeiMLomaxRG.The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Modeling2005; 12(1): 1–27.
HoerlLEBankovichBAMoralesNA, et al. Response rate and content differences between web and mail surveys. Wildlife Soc B2022; 46(2): e1292.
56.
SinghSSrivastavaRK.Predicting the intention to use mobile banking in India. Int J Bank Mark2018; 36(2): 357–378.
57.
MaignanI.Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural comparison. J Bus Ethics2001; 30(1): 57–72.
58.
HollebeekLDGlynnMSBrodieRJ.Consumer brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale development and validation. J Interact Mark2014; 28(2): 149–165.
59.
RobertsonNMcDonaldHLeckieC, et al. Examining customer evaluations across different self-service technologies. J Serv Mark2016; 30(1): 88–102.
60.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM.A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Market Sci2015; 43(1): 115–135.
61.
WoldSRuheAWoldHO, et al. The collinearity problem in linear regression: the partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput1984; 5(3): 735–743.
62.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Mason: Cengage, 2018, pp. 107–111.
63.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev2019; 31(1): 2–24.
64.
WestfallPHHenningKSS. Texts in statistical science: understanding advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 2013.
65.
ShapiroSSWilkMB.An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika1965; 52(3-4): 591–611.
66.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM.PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Market Theory Prac2011; 19(2): 139–152.
67.
DijkstraTKHenselerJ.Consistent partial least squares path modeling. Mis Quart2015; 39(2): 297–316.
68.
FornellCLarckerDF.Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res1981; 18(1): 39–50.
69.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017.
70.
CenfetelliRTBassellierG.Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. Mis Quart2009; 33(4): 689–707.
71.
StoneM.Cross-validation and multinomial prediction. Biometrika1974; 61(3): 509–515.
72.
China Association for Science Technology. Report on the development of China’s scientific journal industry (2022). Beijing, China: Science Press, 2023, pp. 67–69.
73.
HeatonRBurnsDThomsB.Altruism or self-interest? Exploring the motivations of open access authors. Coll Res Libr2019; 80(4): 485–507.
74.
MoksnessLOlsenSOTuuHH.Exploring the effects of habit strength on scholarly publishing. J Doc2020; 76(6): 1393–1411.
75.
Lopez-VergaraCFlores AsenjoPRosa-GarciaA.Incentives to open access: perspectives of health science researchers. Publications2020; 8(2): 29.
76.
HorbachSPJM. Pandemic publishing: medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for COVID-19. Quant Sci Stud2020; 1(3): 1056–1067.
77.
SeoHKimYKimD, et al. Scientific publication speed of Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era. Healthc Inform Res2024; 30(3): 277–285.
78.
GalinskyADTurekAAgarwalG, et al. Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?PNAS Nexus2024; 3(2): 1–19.
79.
DelaneyRStroughJParkerAM, et al. Variations in decision-making profiles by age and gender: a cluster-analytic approach. Pers Indiv Differ2015; 85: 19–24.
