The primary aim of the present study is to provide a comparative-analytical analysis of the proposed results of the Manuscript Matcher with the responses of Library and Information Science experts to select the most appropriate journal for manuscript submission. This study is a kind of applied research conducted using the survey-analytical method with a comparative approach. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire. The designed questionnaire was sent to 38 Library and Information Science (LIS) experts. Moreover, snowball sampling was employed to select a sample of 38 people. Twelve articles published in 12 WOSCC-indexed LIS journals were randomly selected for the Manuscript Matcher analysis. Abstracts and bibliographic data of the articles were sent to the experts. Moreover, the abstracts and titles of the 12 articles were entered in the manuscript matcher, and the results were analyzed and compared with those obtained from experts' opinions. Frequency distribution, percentage, chi-squared (χ2) test, and SPSS software (version 26) were employed for data analysis. More than 70% of the statistical population were assistant professors, 36.8% of experts had more than 40 published articles, 5% had received more than 300 citations, and 2.6% of LIS experts had an h-index above 20. Compared with 62% congruent responses of experts in the target journal selection, the Manuscript Matcher showed an inferior performance of 53% congruent responses. Furthermore, no significant relationship was found between the number of citations and the experts’ h-indexes with the rate of their congruencies in selecting the target journal. Experts were more successful than Manuscript Matcher in selecting the target journal. However, the Manuscript Matcher included comprehensive coverage of publications that can facilitate the selection of a journal for researchers due to the limited knowledge of all journal finders and the time-consuming distinct search processes.
AshfaqAKalagaraRWasifN (2018) H-index and academic rank in general surgery and surgical specialties in the United States. Journal of Surgical Research229(9): 108–113.
6.
AzarOH (2004). Rejections and the importance of first response times. International Journal of Social Economics 31(3), 259–274.
7.
BahadoranZMirmiranPKashfiK, et al (2021) Scientific publishing in biomedicine: How to choose a journal?International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism19(1): e108417.
8.
BjörkBCSolomonD (2013) The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics7(4): 914–923.
9.
BobadillaJOrtegaFHernandoA, et al (2013) Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-based Systems46(10): 109–132.
10.
BornmannL (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology45(1): 197–245.
11.
BramerWMde JongeGBRethlefsenML, et al (2018) A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association106(4): 531.
12.
ChouSW (2021) Understanding crowdsourcing adoption based on IT managers’ decision. Information Technology and Management22(4): 245–263.
13.
CigariniABonhoureIVicensJ, et al (2021) Public libraries embrace citizen science: Strengths and challenges. Library & Information Science Research43(2): 101090.
14.
CostasRBordonsM (2007) The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics1(3): 193–203.
15.
CraswellNDe VriesAPSoboroffI (2005) Overview of the TREC 2005 enterprise track. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth text REtrieval conference, TREC 2005, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 15–18 November 2005, vol 5, pp.199–205. Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
16.
DasDSahooLDattaS (2017) A survey on recommendation system. International Journal of Computer Applications160(7): 6–10.
17.
DavisonRMMartinsonsMGWongLH (2022) The ethics of action research participation. Information Systems Journal32(3): 573–594.
18.
DayNE (2011) The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education10(4): 704–718.
19.
De RondMMillerAN (2005) Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life?Journal of Management Inquiry14(4): 321–329.
20.
EggheL (2006) Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics69(1): 131–152.
21.
EntrupEEppelinAEwerthR, et al (2023) Comparing different search methods for the open access journal recommendation tool B! SON. International Journal on Digital Libraries3(2): 1–12.
22.
ErramiMWrenJDHicksJM, et al (2007) eTBLAST: A web server to identify expert reviewers, appropriate journals and similar publications. Nucleic Acids Research35(suppl_2): W12–W15.
23.
FayyazZEbrahimianMNawaraD, et al (2020) Recommendation systems: Algorithms, challenges, metrics, and business opportunities. Applied Sciences10(21): 7748.
24.
FengXZhangHRenY, et al (2019) The deep learning-based recommender system “pub-mender” for choosing a biomedical publication venue: Development and validation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research21(5): e12957.
25.
FitzgeraldSR (2020) Toward a conceptual framework for scholarly information seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship46(6): 102259.
26.
ForresterABjörkBCTenopirC (2017) New web services that help authors choose journals. Learned Publishing30(4): 281–287.
27.
GhosalTSonamREkbalA, et al (2019). Is the paper within scope? Are you fishing in the right pond? In: 2019 ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL), Champaign, IL, 2–6 June 2019, pp.237–240. New York, NY: IEEE.
28.
GöksedefMGündüz-ÖğüdücüŞ (2010) Combination of Web page recommender systems. Expert Systems with Applications37(4): 2911–2922.
29.
GündoğanEKayaMDaudA (2023) Deep learning for journal recommendation system of research papers. Scientometrics128(1): 461–481.
30.
GutknechtC (2014) Where to publish? Development of a recommender system for academic publishing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland.
31.
HuismanJSmitsJ (2017) Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics113(1): 633–650.
JinTDuanHLuX, et al (2021). Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science. Scientometrics126(10): 8471–8490.
KangNDoornenbalMASchijvenaarsRJ (2015) Elsevier journal finder: Recommending journals for your paper. In: Proceedings of the RecSys ‘15: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Vienna, Austria, 16 – 20 September 2015, pp.261–264. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
36.
KangXWuYRenF (2020) Toward action comprehension for searching: Mining actionable intents in query entities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology71(2): 143–157.
37.
LeggeM (2020) Towards sustainable open access: A society publisher’s principles and pilots for transition. Learned Publishing33(1): 76–82.
38.
LinZHouSWuJ (2016) The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters. Scientometrics107(3): 1457–1464.
39.
LopsPGemmisMDSemeraroG (2011) Content-based recommender systems: State of the art and trends. In: RicciFRokachLShapiraB (eds) Recommender Systems Handbook, pp.73–105. Boston: Springer.
40.
LuWLiuZHuangY, et al (2020) How do authors select keywords? A preliminary study of author keyword selection behavior. Journal of Informetrics14(4): 101066.
41.
LundBDMauryaSK (2021) Research productivity of library and information science faculty in India and the United States: A comparison based on publications, citations and h-index. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management15(1): 89–105.
42.
MacRobertsMHMacRobertsBR (2010) Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(1): 1–12.
43.
McMillanSSKingMTullyMP (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy38(3): 655–662.
44.
ManningCDRaghavanPSchützeH (2008) Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
MarinL (2021) Sharing (mis) information on social networking sites. An exploration of the norms for distributing content authored by others. Ethics and Information Technology23(3): 363–372.
46.
MillerANTaylorSGBedeianAG (2011) Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International16(5): 422–445.
47.
MohamedMHKhafagyMHIbrahimMH (2019). Recommender systems challenges and solutions survey. In: 2019 international conference on innovative trends in computer engineering (ITCE), Aswan, Egypt, 2–4 February 2019, pp.149–155. New York, NY: IEEE.
MulliganAHallLRaphaelE (2013) Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64(1): 132–161.
50.
NguyenTTMaxwell HarperFTerveenLKonstanJA (2018) User personality and user satisfaction with recommender systems. Information Systems Frontiers20(6): 1173–1189.
51.
NicolaisenJ (2007) Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology41(1): 609–641.
52.
ParkDHKimHKKimJK, et al (2011) A review and classification of recommender systems research. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research5(1): 290–294.
53.
RollinsJMcCuskerMCarlsonJ, et al. (2017) Manuscript matcher: A content and bibliometrics-based scholarly journal recommendation system. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval (BIR), Aberdeen, UK, 9 April 2017, pp.18–29. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
54.
SandersonM (2010) Test Collection-based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems. Sheffield: Now Publishers Inc.
55.
SantosaNCLiuXHanH, et al (2023) S3PaR: Section-based sequential scientific paper recommendation for paper writing assistance. SSRN. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532644 (accessed 12 March 2023).
SerçekuşPGencerHÖzkanS (2020) Finding useful cancer information may reduce cancer information overload for Internet users. Health Information & Libraries Journal37(4): 319–328.
58.
ThompsonS. (2012). Sampling. New Jersy: John Wiley & Sons.
59.
Van RaanAF (2006) Comparison of the Hirsch index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics67(3): 491–502.
60.
VaraNMirzabeigiMSotudehH, et al (2022) Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system. Scientometrics, 127, 3237–3252.
61.
WangHChuMWDuboisL (2021) Variability in research productivity among Canadian surgical specialties. Canadian Journal of Surgery64(1): E76.
62.
WangRLewisMZheng-PywellR, et al (2022) Using the H-index as a factor in the promotion of surgical faculty. Heliyon8(4): e09319.
63.
WielandMVon NordheimGKleinen-von KönigslöwK (2021) One recommender fits all? An exploration of user satisfaction with text-based news recommender systems. Media and Communication9(4): 208–221.
YalcinEBilgeA (2022) Evaluating unfairness of popularity bias in recommender systems: A comprehensive user-centric analysis. Information Processing & Management59(6): 103100.
ZrnecAPoženelMLavbičD (2022) Users’ ability to perceive misinformation: An information quality assessment approach. Information Processing & Management59(1): 102739.
