Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Dataset on statistical analysis of editorial board composition of Hindawi journals indexed in Emerging sources citation index

Read this article at

Bookmark
      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

      This data article contains the statistical analysis of the total, percentage and distribution of editorial board composition of 111 Hindawi journals indexed in Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) across the continents. The reliability of the data was shown using correlation, goodness-of-fit test, analysis of variance and statistical variability tests.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 17

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Random number datasets generated from statistical analysis of randomly sampled GSM recharge cards

        Bookmark
        • 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

        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.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Editorial Board Membership of Management and Business Journals: A Social Network Analysis Study of the Financial Times 40

            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [a ]Department of Mathematics, Covenant University, Canaanland, Ota, Nigeria
            [b ]Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Covenant University, Canaanland, Ota, Nigeria
            [c ]Department of Mathematics, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria
            Author notes
            Contributors
            Journal
            Data Brief
            Data Brief
            Data in Brief
            Elsevier
            2352-3409
            20 February 2018
            April 2018
            20 February 2018
            : 17
            : 1041-1055
            5988440 S2352-3409(18)30160-4 10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.044
            © 2018 The Authors

            This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

            Categories
            Decision Science

            Comments

            Comment on this article