MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2527456359 · doi:10.1111/jan.13169

Countries publishing in <i>JAN</i>

2016· editorial· en· W2527456359 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen Malone, Imelda Coyne

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2016
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
Thématiquescientometrics and bibliometrics research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublicationPublishingImpact factorPrestigeLibrary scienceCitationPolitical scienceMedicineLawComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Communicating research findings and choosing where to publish is an important aspect of the research process. It is not uncommon to hear researchers ask: ‘What is the journal's impact factor?’ Discussions also ensue regarding the appropriateness of the journal for the publication of papers such as: review articles; discussion papers; protocols; methodology articles; or empirical research findings. In addition, such discussions often give a good sense of journals to be avoided (Clark & Thompson 2016) and those considered to have prestige, quality and attract international attention. JAN claims to be ‘a world-leading international peer reviewed journal’ (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2648/homepage/ProductInformation.html; accessed 19 September 2016) and we decided to look more closely at the number and type of countries that publish in JAN. The findings should provide potential authors with an overview of the countries that publish in this journal. In JAN's introductory editorial (Smith 1976); one of the stated aims of JAN was to become an international medium for the publication of scholarly papers. Excluding editorials, and book reviews, at the end of its introductory year, JAN was able to boast the publication of six issues with 32 articles from the UK, five from USA, two from Israel, one from Canada and one from Denmark. Interestingly, only eight of these 41 articles; six UK, one USA and one from Israel had co-authors, all of which were of the same country as the lead author. Researchers often publish their work in domestic journals (Salager-Meyer 2014) so it was not surprising that there was a predominance of UK articles. To answer the question: ‘which countries presently publish in JAN?’ we carried out a review of JAN issues over the period July 2015–June 2016 inclusive. Editorials were excluded and ‘included studies’ consisted of 234 articles. Table 1 provides an overview of this descriptive review and shows that JAN is now publishing articles from countries in the five continents – Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and America. Columns 2 and 3 shows that articles published in JAN were predominantly from Australia (40, 17%), followed by UK (39, 17%) and USA (30, 13%). Table 1, column 2, shows a total of 199 (85%) articles with ‘Solo country authorships’ from 28 countries by authors in the same country. This column also shows ‘solo country authorship’ articles ranged from 1-37. Figure 1 shows ‘Solo country authorships’ and shows Australia (37 articles) as the predominant publisher of articles by authors of the same country. In addition, this figure shows that UK is the second most prevalent country for articles with ‘solo country authorships’ (34 articles) followed by USA (26 articles), Canada (14 articles) and Taiwan (11 articles). The remaining countries had a frequency of eight or less. Table 1, column 3, shows a total of 35(15%) articles with ‘lead country authorship’ from 18 countries published by a lead author with co-author(s) from a different country. Figure 2, shows ‘Lead country authorships’ and shows frequencies of five or fewer with UK ranking first, followed by USA in second place with Australia and Taiwan (both with three articles) ranked joint third place. Table 1, column 4, shows the number of countries that co-authored with a ‘lead country authorship’. The number of countries that co-authored with a lead country ranged from 1-10. Table 1, column 5 shows the countries and the number of times that these countries co-authored on published article(s) with a lead country. Both column 4 and column 5 shows the top three co-authorship countries: UK co-authored with ten countries 17 times followed by the USA co-authoring with nine countries 15 times and Australia five countries 10 times. Column 5 also shows the number of co-authorship frequencies for other countries. Figure 2 shows the number of ‘lead country authorships’ and the number of countries that co-authored with the ‘lead authorship country’. To summarize, presently, JAN is publishing authors from all five continents of the world. The top three countries that featured consistently on all count indices were: Australia, UK and USA. JAN ‘solo country’ publications are predominantly from Australia, followed by UK and USA. Lead country authorships are mainly from UK followed by USA, Australia and Taiwan. The countries that most frequency co-authored articles with other countries are shown to be UK in the lead followed by USA and Australia. In conclusion, in its introductory year JAN articles were predominantly UK based. This 2015–2016 review examining JAN issues over 2 years shows that JAN's published articles are predominantly Australia based. These findings should provide authors with an overview of all countries that publish in JAN and an insight into the increasing collaboration between countries publishing articles. This information is quite useful since papers that include co-authors from other countries have the potential to strengthen the quality of the paper (Floyd et al. 1994), increase probability of acceptance for journal publication (Urbancic 1992) and enhance frequency of citation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesBibliométrie
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,989
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,047
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0110,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,003
Communication savante0,0290,009
Science ouverte0,0020,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1240,087

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,241
Tête enseignante GPT0,571
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Advanced NursingMême sujetscientometrics and bibliometrics researchTravaux en français237 207