IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v47y1996i3p184-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The competition for journal space among referees, editors, and other authors and its influence on journals' impact factors

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Miguel Campanario

Abstract

A new approach to study competition for journals' space in academic publication is introduced. It compares the use of a given journal by two kinds of authors: Journal‐related authors and other authors. Journal‐related authors are those who are related in some way with the journal, either because they act as external referees or because they are editors on the journal. To investigate journal use by journal‐related authors, 18 educational psychology journals were studied and the articles they published were counted during a 2‐year period. Journal use by journal‐related or other authors is measured by indicators which give the number and percentage of journal‐related authors, number and percentage of articles authored or co‐authored by journal‐related authors, journal pages used, and mean number of pages from articles authored or co‐authored by journal‐related authors. The data show that journal use by journal‐related authors varies. Thus, the percentage of journal‐related authors ranges from 1.28 to 33.33% depending on the journal. The percentage of articles authored or co‐authored by journal‐related authors ranges from 2.33 to 57.89% of the total, with seven journal‐related authors being authors or co‐authors of five or more articles in the journals on which they serve. In three journals, the mean number of pages from articles authored or co‐authored by journal‐related authors was higher than that from articles authored by other authors. Finally, there is a positive relationship between the use of journals by journal‐related authors and impact factor of journals. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "The competition for journal space among referees, editors, and other authors and its influence on journals' impact factors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(3), pages 184-192, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:3:p:184-192
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:33.0.CO;2-U
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:33.0.CO;2-U
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:33.0.CO;2-U?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guang Yu & Da-Ren Yu, 2008. "Design and simulation on the publication delay control system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 407-427, September.
    2. Sungbin Youk & Hee Sun Park, 2019. "Where and what do they publish? Editors’ and editorial board members’ affiliated institutions and the citation counts of their endogenous publications in the field of communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1237-1260, September.
    3. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
    4. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    5. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi, 2010. "Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 365-389, February.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    7. J. Scott Armstrong & Ruth Pagell, 2003. "The Ombudsman: Reaping Benefits from Management Research: Lessons from the Forecasting Principles Project," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 91-111, December.
    8. Ortinau, David J., 2011. "Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 150-156, February.
    9. Lydia L. Lange & P. A. Frensch, 1999. "Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 459-486, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:3:p:184-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.