Abstract

This paper argues the need to adapt the publication evaluation systems to the characteristics of the humanities, in order to overcome the current discrimination of these disciplines. Citation indicators applied to 2, 3, or 5 years of publication provide poor and distorted statistics for journal evaluation. The citation period should be extended and the classification system refined. On the other hand, it is essential to strengthen the incipient sources about monograph quality and publication modality with a central weight in the humanities.

Abstract

This paper reviews the Brazilian national system of journal evaluation Qualis Periódicos. It reviews some of the fundamentals of journal evaluation based on citation analysis and inclusion in databases. This paper also discusses the evaluation of journals based on national lists and the characteristics of the Brazilian evaluation system. It analyzes the criteria and examples of the Communication and Information area as well as some of the arguments against the system. It concludes that Qualis Periódicos is too dependent on the opinion of experts and that the development and application criteria are not sufficiently clear. The conclusions point out some possibilities that could be followed in the future to improve the system.

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the key content and software features which must be analyzed by skilled librarians/information professionals to deliver reliable, accurate, and appropriately comprehensive set of bibliographic data and bibliometric indicators about the status of the journals listed in the promotion, tenure and grant applications, as well as in journal desiderata for purposes of collection development in academic and special libraries.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the weaknesses of the Humanities and Social Sciences journal publishing sector in Spain. A high percentage of these journals are published by universities and often as a result of the effort of a small team (e.g., professional association, department, research group). They often have very low numbers of papers published per year, limited impact, and inefficient management, and may find it difficult to overcome a certain image of inbreeding. Against this dominant model, the authors propose the merger, co-publishing or restructuring of current journals to improve their management and achieve greater national and international recognition.

Abstract

Journals are ranked in the subject categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) according to their impact factors (JIF). The calculation of this indicator includes both citations received from other journals and self-citations from the journal itself. In this paper the current model of the JCR is compared with an alternate model using the JIF without self-citations as a variable. In order to do this, simulations were carried out using JIF without self-citations as an alternative variable. We studied the relationship between the two variables (JIF with self-citations and JIF without self-citations), the gain obtained by the journals with the usual JIF with self-citations, the changes in the ranking in the whole JCR, and changes in the internal ranking in the JCR’s subject categories. A small negative correlation was found between the gain that the journals obtained and their JIF. The results obtained suggest that if JIF without self-citations were used as the variable, the ranking of journals in the JCR and within the subject categories would be, in general, very different from the current one. The quantification of these differences is one of the more interesting results of this work.