Journal Publishing and Marketing in an Age of Digital Media, Open Access and Impact Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Worldwide, the publishing industry has been compelled to change with digital media technology, and some traditional academic journals are struggling to adapt. This article examines the marketing and publicity actions available to the Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique and similar flagship journals in an environment characterized by open access (OA) and impact factor (IF) metrics. It reviews the opportunities and threats presented by a movement towards publishing in ungated forums and pressure in the academic community to prioritize bibliometrics. It then looks at the experience, characteristics and comparative position of the Journal/Revue before reporting on perceptions and recommendations drawn from depth interviews with journal editors, presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association, and a university librarian, which are supplemented by suggestions from editorial board members. It concludes with proposals to address these circumstances head on, many of which are generalizable to other journals wrestling with marketing and publishing in the digital age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.132 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".