This study surveys the landscape of scholarly publishing, with particular emphasis on scholarly journals in the communication discipline, measuring the shift to electronic publishing in six selected disciplines and exploring two other important emerging topics: open-access publishing and new journal citation metrics. The goals are to inform communication researchers about emerging topics in scholarly publishing; to provide updated information about the proportion of electronic-only journals; to compare the impact of electronic-only journals and open-access journals to other journals in the same discipline; and to provide a list of communication journals showing each journal’s Impact Factor, open-access status, and other information relevant to researchers’ decisions about publication venue.
BarnettJ. H.DeliyannidesT. S. (2011). Open access: Greater impact for your research [PowerPoint slides]. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6151
2.
BollenJ.Van de SompelH.SmithJ.LuceR. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing & Management, 41, 1419-1440.
DannerR. A.KolevK.MostM. (2011). Print or perish? Authors’ attitudes toward electronic-only publications of law journals. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1886445
5.
DelgadoE.RepisoR. (2013). The impact of scientific journals of communication: Comparing Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science, and Scopus. Comunicar, 21, 45-52.
6.
Directory of Open Access Journals. (2015). What are the basic standards that a journal must meet for an application to be considered? Retrieved from http://doaj.org/faq#standards
7.
EllisonG. (2011). Is peer review in decline?Economic Inquiry, 49, 635-657.
8.
FingermanS. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 48. Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html
9.
FooteJ. B.FooteJ. S. (2011). A tipping point for electronic journals? A comparison of highly cited journals in six disciplines. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 66, 231-242.
10.
GarfieldE.PudovkinA. (2015). Journal Impact Factor strongly correlates with the citedness of the median journal paper. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9, 5-14.
11.
HaL. (2015). Self-citations and increasing influence of our research on other fields. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 285-291.
HechtF.HechtB. K.SandbergA. A. (1998). The journal “impact factor”: A misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 104(2), 77-81.
14.
HirschJ. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569-16572.
KachalubaS. B.BradyJ. E.CrittenJ. (2014). Developing humanities collections in the digital age: Exploring humanities faculty engagement with electronic and print resources. College & Research Libraries, 75, 91-108.
17.
MingersJ.MacriF.PetroviciD. (2012). Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management. Information Processing & Management, 48, 234-241.
18.
MongeonP.Paul-HusA. (2014). The journal coverage of bibliometric databases: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Paper presented at ASIS&T Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, November, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGMET/data/uploads/sigmet2014/mongeon.pdf
