Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers

Abstract

This study explores the publishing success of less experienced researchers including early career researchers in a selection of library and information science journals. The study includes all authors of articles and reviews published in 10 library and information science journals during a 20-year period (2001–2020). The prior publication of each author is determined at the time of publication in one of the ten journals. The analysis includes 14,612 publications and publication histories of 36,417 authors. The results show that there are considerable differences between journals, and that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time. Library automation journals publish considerably more publications by early career researchers than information science journals do. Publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience.

Keywords

Bibliometrics early career researchers less experienced researchers library and information science journals publication outlets

1. Introduction

The aphorism publish or perish describes the fact, that in order to succeed in academia, researchers need to publish academic works. Thus, less experienced researchers such as early career researchers are under great pressure to publish [1] and they seem to have responded to the pressure by increasing their productivity measured as the number of published articles or reviews [2]. Productivity in the early phases of the research career is important as early career publishing is correlated with future research excellence. A high number of early career publications have been found to be positively correlated with later research productivity [3 –9]. The importance of selecting a target journal is described recently as follows:

Researchers attempt to choose the most appropriate platform to highlight their research work so that their work gets published in good order, read, and referred. Hence, selecting an appropriate journal is the most vital task for them. [10]

Advice on how to get published is available in plentiful to help less experienced researchers to ‘publish more papers in top academic journals’ [11]. Researchers are recommended to select the target journal early in the writing process [12] and generally how to publish before even beginning the project [13]. However, publication strategies are often not explicitly included in doctoral student training taught at the university level, and doctoral students often do not discuss this with their supervisor [14]. Furthermore, the lack of formal training on the various aspects of the publishing process is increasingly being acknowledged and addressed in dedicated programmes [15].

Recent studies confirm that choosing an appropriate journal is a complex decision and that many factors are considered when deciding on a publication outlet [16 –18]. However, selecting a target journal is often based on incomplete information regarding the journal’s ability to support the authors in their pursuit of disseminating their research and advancing their academic career [19]. One factor is particularly difficult for the less experienced researcher to assess. Authors take their prior experience with the journal into consideration [20 –22], and indeed, authors tend to publish in a relatively small number of journals [23,24]. However, for less experienced researchers, past submission experience is per definition limited. They may, of course, ask more experienced colleagues for advice. However, the journals within a field develop over time and the experience of older colleagues may not be transferable. It may therefore be valuable for less experienced researcher to gain insights into publishing success for other less experienced researchers in the journals within their field.

This study aims to explore the publication patterns of less experienced researchers in core library and information science journals. More specifically, the goal is to investigate the share of less experienced researchers in each journal to analyse changes over time as well as differences across journals. Providing such an overlook of the journals in our field will hopefully assist authors with limited past submission experience choosing the optimal journal for publishing their research.

In the next section, we discuss the concept of journal hierarchies and how it may relate to publication success. Then, we define the entities of the study and the methods applied. Results are presented separately, and the implications of our findings are finally discussed.

2. Choosing a publication outlet

When selecting where to publish ones research, a researcher will typically take the issue of journal quality into consideration. This issue is closely tied to the so-called order hierarchy, defining a value-based ranking of a set of elements under investigation [25]. Although order hierarchies are always value-based, in academia, the basic values of order hierarchies are far from always explicated. Instead, they are often tacitly implied. Kuhn [26] was among the first to address the concept of tacit knowledge in academia. According to him, tacit knowledge covers the common rules that create the implicit basis for the paradigms, which define scientific standards. They are typically acquired through apprenticeship, and tradition is passed down through learning by doing, by submitting to authority or by trusting the experienced practitioner. In every scientific discipline, there is an order hierarchy of journals [27]: ‘Those at the top are the most prestigious, are perceived as having the highest quality standards and are difficult to publish in’.

Although several national and international rankings of journals exist, the order hierarchy of academic journals is primarily tacit knowledge. Researchers simply come to know the structure of this hierarchy over time: ‘Interestingly, as time goes on, most authors discover their ecological niche in this hierarchy and seldom venture far away from it’ [27].

The order hierarchy of journals may consequently play a role when authors determine where to publish. The common assumption (e.g. Garvey [27] and Heintzelman and Nocetti [28]) is that authors will try to maximise professional rewards, and will therefore aim at publishing in the most prestigious journals. If rejected, they will continue down the order hierarchy until acceptance is reached. Based on a study of British biochemists, Gordon [29] found that authors selected journals primarily on the basis of the journal audiences, rather than by potential reward. He therefore concluded that the reward-seeking model of selection behaviour found little or no support in his sample. Luukkonen [30] came to the opposite conclusion. Based on interviews with researchers from four university departments in the fields of zoology, biomedicine, and automation and control technology, he concluded that researchers placed emphasis on both the reward and communication functions of publishing. Yet, there were differences between fields. The publishing behaviour of biomedical scientists fitted the maximisation of professional rewards strategy best. Calcagno et al. [31] presented results from a large-scale survey of the submission process, covering 923 scientific journals from the biological sciences (2006–2008) showing among other things that resubmissions tend to flow from journals with higher impact factors to journals with lower impact factors. Other studies [32 –34] have also shown that generally, authors are attracted by journals with higher impact factors when deciding where to submit their manuscripts.

Summing up, the journal hierarchies are generally taken into account when authors determine where to publish. However, inexperienced and early career researchers may not necessarily fit the general patterns. Existing studies confirm that the publication strategies of early career researchers focus on publishing the highest quantity of journal articles in the best quality journals as possible being aware of the importance of metrics such as the journal impact factor (JIF) in evaluations [35,36]. Many early career researchers use the JIF to identify the best quality journals within their field [35,36].

There are studies indicating that less experienced researchers are using journal selection criteria differently from their more experienced colleagues. Researchers engaged with questionable journals tend to be young and inexperienced when they publish in these journals [37,38], review for them [39] and cite them [40,41]. Consequently, these studies suggest that experience makes a difference when deciding for a publication outlet. Furthermore, the study by Søreide and Winter finds that age correlated with valued importance of the journal reputation but was inversely correlated with fast-track decision, time from acceptance to paper in e-press, journal previously published on the topic, author previously published in the journal and option to suggest or exclude reviewers. Consequently, increasing age means that there is a decline in the percentage of responders holding the impact factor (IF) as the most important factor when deciding on a journal. However, increasing age means relying more on past publishing success [20]. Consequently, the less experienced researchers value the importance of the criteria differently from more experienced researchers. However, contrary to the findings by Søreide and Winter, Cheung [21] finds that the stage of a researcher’s career does not affect the importance attached to a particular factor by an author whereas having editorial experience or being affiliated to a higher ranked university have an impact on the appraisal of each factor.

3. Methods

For the purpose of this study, we need to define a less experienced researcher. Studies of publication activity and citation impact of specific researcher groups may include chronological age, career age, professional categories or academic experience.

Less experienced researchers may be defined based on career or chronological age. Early career researchers represent the transition stage between PhD and senior academic positions and can be defined as being less than 10 years since PhD completion [42]. A definition used in other studies as well (e.g. Wanelik et al. [43]). A similar approach is recently used, although a shorter time frame is being used as the definition of early career researchers is up to 7 years after completing the PhD [44]. Furthermore, early career researchers can be defined as academic researchers up to 5 years after completing the PhD while allowing for extension where significant life factors have limited the research conducted due to, for example, illness or parental leave [45]. Chronological age may also be part of the definition. Combining chronological age with professional categories, a recent study defines early career researchers as researchers less than 36 years old who are currently doing a doctorate or have received their doctorate but are not in established or tenured positions [46].

Professional categories may also be used to define less experienced researchers. A recent study examines three categories of early career researchers: doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows and research staff on fixed-term contracts [47]. Similarly, analyses have been made on doctoral candidates and postdocs [48]. An early career researcher can also be defined as anyone engaged in research who is not recognised as an independent leader of a research group which includes undergraduates, graduates, postdoctoral researchers and junior research assistants [49]. Combining professional categories with career age, early career researchers can be defined as researchers who earned a doctoral degree less than 10 years prior to applying or were employed in colleges or universities as assistant professors for less than 5 years [50].

Finally, less experienced researchers may be defined based on publication records. Studies of publication activity and citation impact may be defined through academic experience of specific researcher groups. Publication records can also form the basis of the definition [51]. In this study, a similar approach is used as it characterises the less experienced researchers: early career researchers, practitioners in the field that rarely publish as well as unproductive researchers. The next step is to define the less experienced researcher bibliometrically and a threshold needs to be set, however, turning to the existing literature we see that these definitions are typically made ad hoc. In a large-scale study of research careers, four career stages are defined as follows: junior (<5 years since first publication), early career (≥5 and <15 years since first publication), mid-career (≥15 and <30 years since first publication) and late-career (≥30 years since first publication) [52]. The authors note that the time periods were selected for convenience and that any other division could have been selected. Another example is a study of stratification in the global higher education research community the author defines full-timers as researchers who authored or co-authored at least five papers in a set of elite journals and argues that they are defined arbitrarily [53].

To allow for analyses of the consequences of defining the less experienced researchers in this study, we work with two different definitions. Consequently, we define less experienced researcher using two different definitions:

LER-3 is defined as a researcher who has authored or co-authored less than three articles and reviews, that is, <3 articles and reviews.

LER-5 is defined as a researcher who has authored or co-authored less than five articles and reviews, that is, <5 articles and reviews.

In this study, the order of authors is not considered. The order of the authors of a scholarly publication can take place using several different approaches: by amount of contribution, alphabetical order, multiple first author or multiple last author, by seniority or reverse seniority, by raffling or lottery system, by negotiation or mutual understanding [54]. Many of these approaches indicate that author order can be tied to experience which is also confirmed empirically [52,55]. The order author in a publication co-authored by a less experienced researcher would therefore be tied to this. Consequently, we measure the number of publications and co-authors, but we are not able to determine the role of each co-author or the relative sizes of their contributions.

Next, we determine the publications of library and information science journals to be included. For the purpose of this study, we draw on an existing list including library and information science journals categorised as information science journals and library automation journals [56]. The list or modified versions of it has formed the basis of several studies of library and information science (recent examples include Zhao and Strotmann [57], Hoiu et al. [58] and Nicolaisen and Frandsen [59]). The list is adjusted according to title changes. Discontinued journal titles are excluded, and we therefore have 10 journals included in this study. From these journals, we include all articles and reviews from 2001 to 2020 with author information in the data set (Table 1) – a total 14,612 of articles and reviews. Due to co-authorships, the total number of authors analysed is more than twice the amount of publications (36,417). Table 1 shows that the library automation journals (Data Technologies and Applications, Electronic Library, Information Technology and Libraries and Library Resources and Technical Services) published fewer articles from 2001 to 2020 than the information science journals (Information Processing & Management, Journal of Documentation, Journal of Information Science, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Library and Information Science Research and Scientometrics) did.

Table 1.

Sample.

Journal	Articles and reviews	Authors
Library automation journals	2551	5206
Data Technologies and Applications	564	1257
Electronic Library	1242	2614
Information Technology and Libraries	422	774
Library Resources and Technical Services	323	561
Information science journals	12,061	31,211
Information Processing & Management	1656	5040
Journal of Documentation	1182	2148
Journal of Information Science	1103	2808
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology	3144	8173
Library and Information Science Research	606	1248
Scientometrics	4370	11,794

Finally, we define the variables of the study in the following way.

Author experience is defined as the total number of articles and reviews published by every author in the years leading up to but not including the publication year of the specific publication in our data set. We define two indicators of author experience as follows:

Absolute author experience is defined using absolute counts where the articles and reviews published by all authors are added.

Normalised author experience is defined as the articles and reviews published by all authors divided by the number of authors.

We use Scopus to identify all articles and reviews published by a researcher and more specifically, Scopus Author Identifier forms the basis of collecting data on author experience. Scopus Author Identifier is reliable for bibliometric analyses although it is not without limitations [60,61]. It should be noted that the publication record of each author is determined on the basis of all their publications and is thus not restricted to the included 10 journals in this study. An author of a single publication in our data set may thus be highly experienced due to many publications in other journals. The experience of an author is based on the number of articles and reviews they have published in the years preceding the publication in our data set. An author may appear several times in our data set with different experience levels if they have published articles or reviews in the 10 journals with different publication years. Consequently, the author experience is determined for each author of every paper which in this study is the publication history of 36,417 authors. An example is an article published in 2015 in Journal of Documentation by three authors. These authors have published a total of 10, 6 and 20 articles and reviews, respectively, up until 2014. Absolute author experience is then determined as 10 + 6 + 20 = 36, whereas normalised author experience is determined as (10 + 6 + 20)/3 = 12. We use Scopus for our data collection and the data are analysed using graphic overviews showing the development over time using moving averages.

4. Results

Generally, the number of previously published articles and reviews by the authors of papers in the 10 journals in this study has increased over time. Figure 1 provides an overview of the average number of previous articles and reviews by the authors of publications in our data set. Library automation journals are marked with a dotted line. The experience of authors in Scientometrics can serve as an example to illustrate how to read the figure: in 2002, the articles and reviews published in Scientometrics were authored by one or more authors that in total had an average number of previously published articles and reviews of approximately 40. The unit of analysis is the paper and the experience is thus measured as an average per paper to avoid bias from different patterns of authorship. In 2020, the absolute experience of authors of articles and reviews in Scientometrics had increased to approximately 80. Consequently, in 2020, each article and review in Scientometrics was authored by an author or a team of authors with twice as many previously published articles and reviews as in 2001. However, not all the journals in the data set show the same tendency towards increased author experience. The four library automation journals publish papers by authors with little increase in absolute publication experience. However, the six information science journals are characterised by noticeable increase over time in absolute author experience. However, this development is to some extent caused by an increase in the average number of authors per publication. To further examine this, the author experience needs to be normalised by the number of authors per publication.

Figure 1.

Absolute author experience per article from 2001 to 2020 in 10 library and information science journals. The four library automation journals are marked with a dotted line.

Figure 2 shows the development over time in author experience having normalised to correct for differences in the average number of authors across time and journals. Again, Scientometrics can serve as an example as to how the figure is read. In 2001, the average publication experience for authors in Scientometrics was about 20 articles and reviews. This means that articles and reviews in Scientometrics were published by authors who on average had published 20 articles or reviews each in the previous years. In 2020, the normalised author experience had increased to about 30. After normalisation, the considerable increases in author experience over time are now smaller and in most cases negligible. In addition, from the figure, we observe that the library automation journals in this study generally publish articles and reviews by authors with less experience than the information science journals.

Figure 2.

Normalised author experience per article from 2001 to 2020 in 10 library and information science journals. The four library automation journals are marked with a dotted line.

We now look at the share of less experienced researchers in each journal. Figure 3 presents the share of less experienced researchers over time. Again, the individual article or review is the unit of analysis, and we analyse the experience of the authors of the paper having controlled for the number of authors. Here, a paper by less experienced researchers is defined as a paper published by one or more authors having controlled for the number of authors. A less experienced author is an author who has published less than five articles and reviews in the years before but not including the publication year of the publication in our data set. We normalise by the number of authors, and therefore, we define a less experienced researcher publication as one being published by one or more authors with less than five publications on average. Using the definition of a less experienced author as an author who has published less than three articles and reviews similar although more unstable results due to the smaller numbers, and therefore, we only present the results of the analysis using the definition of a less experienced author as an author who has published less than five articles and reviews in the years before but not including the publication year of the publication in our data set.

Figure 3.

Share of less experienced researchers (<5 previously published articles and reviews) from 2001 to 2020 in 10 library and information science journals. The four library automation journals are marked with a dotted line.

Figure 3 depicts a picture of great variety when it comes to the past publishing success of the authors of articles and journals in library and information science journals. In 2020, the shares range from 10% to 75%. Figure 3 also shows that the library journals are publishing considerably more publications by less experienced researchers than the information science journals do. In addition, the figure shows that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has decreased over time. In the information science journals, the shares of less experienced researcher publications were between 30% and 40% in 2001. In 2020, the shares of less experienced researcher papers have decreased and only two journals are above 20%. Due to the small number of publications each year, it is more difficult to see the decrease in the library automation journals. However, in general, the shares of less experienced researcher papers are also decreasing in the library automation journals.

5. Discussion and conclusion

First, in this study we have defined the less experienced researcher using two different definitions. LER-3 is defined as a researcher who has authored or co-authored less than three articles and reviews, whereas LER-5 is defined as a researcher who has authored or co-authored less than five articles and reviews. These definitions are typically made ad hoc in bibliometric studies and alternative definitions are not necessarily tested but, in this case, we can see that the latter LER-5 produces more stable results as that definition includes more researchers and the results are reported using this definition.

The findings of this study show that there are considerable differences between library and information science journals when it comes to the average past publication success by the authors publishing in these journals. On average, the library automation journals are characterised by publishing articles and reviews by authors with less experience than the information science journals. The library automation journals publish considerably more publications by less experienced researchers than the information science journals. This marked difference between the information science and library automation journals has also been found in other bibliometric studies. There seems to be a strong relationship between research topics and technological developments [62] which may have led to the decrease in research interest over the years. Library automation appeared in the 1960s and was of increasing interest in the 1970s but is now somewhat out-of-date in the research literature [63]. Consequently, these four journals may represent a more applied approach and therefore attract practitioners from the field with less experience. Furthermore, these four journals seem to be characterised by a lower degree of specialisation measured by bibliographic coupling, and therefore possibly easier to enter for an unexperienced author [64].

Furthermore, the results show that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time in the 10 journals examined here. These results need to be considered in the light of the publish or perish paradigm. Since the production of publications is key to a research career and academic advancement, the production of publications during doctoral studies is increasingly expected and constitutes a part of the socialisation process [65]. In pursuit of getting published, the focus is on traditional, formal publications as they remain indispensable for institutional reputation setting [36,66] although early career researchers are more probably to be able to reach out and increase their influence [67].

The results of this study are relevant to the modelling of the choice of publication outlet. The existing frameworks for explaining the choice of publication outlet generally do not include career stage as a parameter for the choice of journal. However, we find age and career stage to be included in several studies modelling the choice of publication outlet. In the model developed by Björk and Holmström, the authors argue that the factors that influence the decision are weighted according to individual preferences which may include career stage although this is not explained in detail [68]. Wong et al. [69] use a multi-objective optimisation analysis to determine the set of journal submission pathways that balance the objectives for three stages of a researcher’s career and argues that the trade-offs between objectives even for co-authors of the same manuscript may not always be aligned due to their different career stages. They find that optimal solutions may be partitioned into different classes of strategies, and these are attractive at different career stages.

Research careers and academic advancements are tied to publishing, and, as a consequence, less experienced researchers may struggle to publish the highest quantity using the best publication outlets for their work. Identifying and selecting the optimal journals is a complex decision, and many factors play a role. One factor is particularly difficult for the less experienced researcher: experience with publishing in the field’s journals. For less experienced researchers, past submission experience is per definition limited. This study shows that generally publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience in total.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tove Faber Frandsen

References

Nicholas

Jamali

Herman

et al. How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study. Prof Inf 2020; 29(6): 1–22.

Frandsen

Jacobsen

Nicolaisen

et al. Pressure to publish: a bibliometric study of PhD students (1993–2009). Inform Res 2019; 24(4): colis1925.

Acuna

Allesina

Kording

KP.

Predicting scientific success. Nature 2012; 489(7415): 201–202.

García-Pérez

MA.

Limited validity of equations to predict the future h index. Scientometrics 2013; 96(3): 901–909.

Horta

Santos

JM.

The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Res High Educ 2016; 57(1): 28–50.

Laurance

Useche

Laurance

et al. Predicting publication success for biologists. Bioscience 2013; 63(10): 817–823.

Lindahl

Colliander

Danell

Early career performance and its correlation with gender and publication output during doctoral education. Scientometrics 2020; 122(1): 309–330.

Penner

Pan

Petersen

et al. On the predictability of future impact in science. Sci Rep 2013; 3(1): 3052.

Zhang

What is the best article publishing strategy for early career scientists?

Scientometrics 2020; 122(1): 397–408.

10.

Vaishya

Vaish

Haleem

What is there in the scoring and rating of journals?

J Clin Orthop Traum 2020; 11: S684–S685.

11.

Fischer

Gopaldas

Scaraboto

Why papers are rejected and how to get yours accepted: advice on the construction of interpretive consumer research articles. Qual Mark Res 2017; 20(1): 60–67.

12.

Busse

August

How to write and publish a research paper for a peer-reviewed journal. J Cancer Educ 2021; 36(5): 909–913.

13.

Coronel

On publication strategies. Another advice to a beginning scientist. Front Physiol 2020; 11: 1073.

14.

Merga

Mason

Morris

Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach. Learn Publ 2018; 31(4): 381–389.

15.

Springer Nature Limited. In support of early career researchers. Nat Commun 2021; 12(1): 2896.

16.

Hardman

Serginson

JM.

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal. Cardiovasc Endocrinol 2017; 6(3): 95–100.

17.

Lee

Yang

DG.

Factors influencing the choice of a publication venue in library and information science. Learn Publ 2020; 33(3): 323–332.

18.

Rowley

Sbaffi

Sugden

et al. Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. J Inform Sci. Epub ahead of print 16 September 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0165551520958591.

19.

Björk

Öörni

A method for comparing scholarly journals as service providers to authors. Ser Rev 2009; 35(2): 62–69.

20.

Søreide

Winter

DC.

Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. Surgery 2010; 147(4): 475–480.

21.

Cheung

Audience matters: a study of how authors select educational journals. Asia Pac Educ Res 2008; 17(2): 191–201.

22.

Frank

Authors’ criteria for selecting journals. JAMA 1994; 272(2): 163–164.

23.

Sugimoto

Jiang

Venue-author-coupling: a measure for identifying disciplines through author communities. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013; 64(2): 265–279.

24.

Hsieh

JL.

Author publication preferences and journal competition. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017; 68(2): 365–377.

25.

Lane

Hierarchy, complexity, society. In: Pumain

(ed.) Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, pp. 81–119.

26.

Kuhn

The structure of scientific revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.

27.

Garvey

Social dimensions of science: the struggle between authors and editors. J Res Commun Stud 1981; 3(3): 257–271.

28.

Heintzelman

Nocetti

Where should we submit our manuscript? An analysis of journal submission strategies. Berkeley Electron J Econ Anal Policy 2009; 9(1): 1314850.

29.

Gordon

MD.

How authors select journals: a test of the reward maximization model of submission behaviour. Soc Stud Sci 1984; 14(1): 27–43.

30.

Luukkonen

Is scientists’ publishing behaviour rewardseeking?

Scientometrics 1992; 24(2): 297–319.

31.

Calcagno

Demoinet

Gollner

et al. Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science 2012; 338(6110): 1065–1069.

32.

Aarssen

Tregenza

Budden

et al. Bang for your buck: rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. Open Ecol J 2008; 1(1): 14–19.

33.

Gaston

Ounsworth

Senders

et al. Factors affecting journal submission numbers: impact factor and peer review reputation. Learn Publ 2020; 33(2): 154–162.

34.

Canadian Science Publishing. Canadian researchers publishing attitudes and behaviours: a phase 5 report for Canadian science publishing. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Science Publishing, 2014.

35.

Nicholas

Rodríguez-Bravo

Watkinson

et al. Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learn Publ 2017; 30(3): 205–217.

36.

Nicholas

Herman

et al. Early career researchers’ quest for reputation in the digital age. J Sch Publ 2018; 49(4): 375–396.

37.

Shen

Björk

BC.

‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13: 230.

38.

Xia

Harmon

Connolly

et al. Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015; 66(7): 1406–1417.

39.

Severin

Strinzel

Egger

et al. Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data. BMJ Open 2021; 11(7): e050270.

40.

Frandsen

TF.

Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics 2017; 113(3): 1513–1528.

41.

Björk

Kanto-Karvonen

Harviainen

JT.

How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited. Publications 2020; 8(2): 17.

42.

Christian

Johnstone

Larkins

et al. Research culture: a survey of early-career researchers in Australia. eLife 2021; 10: e60613.

43.

Wanelik

Griffin

Head

et al. Breaking barriers? Ethnicity and socioeconomic background impact on early career progression in the fields of ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol 2020; 10(14): 6870–6880.

44.

Akram

Young

ZP.

Early career researchers’ experiences of post-maternity and parental leave provision in UK politics and international studies departments: a heads of department and early career researcher survey. Polit Stud Rev 2021; 19(1): 58–74.

45.

Merga

Mason

Mentor and peer support for early career researchers sharing research with academia and beyond. Heliyon 2021; 7(2): e06172.

46.

Nicholas

Watkinson

Abrizah

et al. Does the scholarly communication system satisfy the beliefs and aspirations of new researchers? Summarizing the Harbingers research. Learn Publ 2020; 33(2): 132–141.

47.

Bégin-Caouette

Jansson

Beaupré-Lavallée

The perceived contribution of early-career researchers to research production in Nordic higher education systems. High Educ Policy 2020; 33(4): 777–798.

48.

Forbrig

Kuper

Early career researchers’ engagement in proactive career behaviour: investigation of the extent and favourable influences. Eur Jour High Educ 2021; 11(4): 432–460.

49.

McDowell

Knutsen

Graham

et al. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife 2019; 8: e48425.

50.

Shin

EJ.

Journal publishing and authorship in library and information science by early career researchers in South Korea. J Inf Sci Theor Pract 2019; 7(1): 6–16.

51.

Frandsen

Nicolaisen

Effects of academic experience and prestige on researchers’ citing behavior. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2012; 63(1): 64–71.

52.

Robinson-Garcia

Costas

Sugimoto

et al. Task specialization across research careers. eLife 2020; 9: e60586.

53.

Kwiek

The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach. High Educ 2021; 81(3): 493–519.

54.

Peidu

Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?

Scientometrics 2019; 121(3): 1527–1547.

55.

Fernandes

Costa

Cortez

Author placement in computer science: a study based on the careers of ACM fellows. Scientometrics 2022; 127(1): 351–368.

56.

White

McCain

KW.

Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1998; 49(4): 327–355.

57.

Zhao

Strotmann

Intellectual structure of information science 2011–2020: an author co-citation analysis. J Document 2021; 78(3): 728–744.

58.

Hou

Yang

Chen

Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics 2018; 115(2): 869–892.

59.

Nicolaisen

Frandsen

TF.

Journals as communities: a case study of core journals in LIS. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2021; 58(1): 510–514.

60.

Aman

Does the Scopus author ID suffice to track scientific international mobility? A case study based on Leibniz laureates. Scientometrics 2018; 117(2): 705–720.

61.

Kawashima

Tomizawa

Accuracy evaluation of Scopus Author ID based on the largest funding database in Japan. Scientometrics 2015; 103(3): 1061–1071.

62.

Åström

Changes in the LIS research front: time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007; 58(7): 947–957.

63.

Larivière

Sugimoto

Cronin

A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science’s first hundred years. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2012; 63(5): 997–1016.

64.

Nicolaisen

Frandsen

TF.

Core journals in library and information science: measuring the level of specialization over time. Inform Res 2013; 18(3): S05.

65.

Sinclair

Barnacle

Cuthbert

How the doctorate contributes to the formation of active researchers: what the research tells us. Stud High Educ 2014; 39(10): 1972–1986.

66.

Masum

Tovey

The reputation society: how online opinions are reshaping the offline world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

67.

Herman

Scholarly reputation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2018; 365(18): fny200.

68.

Björk

Holmström

Benchmarking scientific journals from the submitting author’s viewpoint. Learn Publ 2006; 19(2): 147–155.

69.

Wong

Srikrishnan

Hadka

et al. A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(6): e0178874.