Exploration of editorial board composition, Citescore and percentiles of Hindawi journals indexed in Scopus

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The statistical analysis of editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile of 180 Hindawi journals currently indexed in Scopus are presented in this data article. The three indicators (editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile) can be helpful for researchers to make informed decision about the impact of Hindawi journals. The last two indicators are components of Scopus Citescore metrics.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

Jelte Wicherts, SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM (2016)

Background Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. Methods and Findings Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. Conclusions The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.