[21]. Nam Danh Nguyen, Trung Tran, Trung Tien Nguyen, Thao Phuong Thi Trinh (2022). Manuscript matcher: A tool for finding the best journal. Proceedings of the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics, ISSN 2771-5914, vol 01, pp.50-55 (Scopus). (original) (raw)
Related papers
Do LIS experts select more appropriate journals than journal finders? A study about LIS journals?
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (Sage), 2023
The primary aim of the present study is to provide a comparative-analytical analysis of the proposed results of the Manuscript Matcher with the responses of Library and Information Science experts to select the most appropriate journal for manuscript submission. This study is a kind of applied research conducted using the survey-analytical method with a comparative approach. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire. The designed questionnaire was sent to 38 Library and Information Science (LIS) experts. Moreover, snowball sampling was employed to select a sample of 38 people. Twelve articles published in 12 WOSCC-indexed LIS journals were randomly selected for the Manuscript Matcher analysis. Abstracts and bibliographic data of the articles were sent to the experts. Moreover, the abstracts and titles of the 12 articles were entered in the manuscript matcher, and the results were analyzed and compared with those obtained from experts' opinions. Frequency distribution, percentage, chi-squared (χ2) test, and SPSS software (version 26) were employed for data analysis. More than 70% of the statistical population were assistant professors, 36.8% of experts had more than 40 published articles, 5% had received more than 300 citations, and 2.6% of LIS experts had an h-index above 20. Compared with 62% congruent responses of experts in the target journal selection, the Manuscript Matcher showed an inferior performance of 53% congruent responses. Furthermore, no significant relationship was found between the number of citations and the experts’ h-indexes with the rate of their congruencies in selecting the target journal. Experts were more successful than Manuscript Matcher in selecting the target journal. However, the Manuscript Matcher included comprehensive coverage of publications that can facilitate the selection of a journal for researchers due to the limited knowledge of all journal finders and the time-consuming distinct search processes. Forough Rahimi,
A Single Journal Study: Malaysian Journal of Computer Science
Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 2009
Single journal studies are reviewed and measures used in the studies are highlighted. The following quantitative measures are used to study 272 articles published in Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, (1) the article productivity of the journal from 1985 to 2007, (2) the observed and expected authorship productivity tested using Lotka's Law of author productivity, identification and listing of core authors; (3) the authorship, co-authorship pattern by authors' country of origin and institutional affiliations; (4) the subject areas of research; (5) the citation analysis of resources referenced as well as the age and half-life of citations; the journals referenced and tested for zonal distribution using Bradford's law of journal scattering; the extent of web citations; and (6) the citations received by articles published in MJCS and impact factor of the journal based on information obtained from Google Scholar, the level of author and journal self-citation.
Manuscript Matcher: A Content and Bibliometrics-based Scholarly Journal Recommendation System
2017
While many web-based systems recommend relevant or interesting scientific papers and authors, few tools actually recommend journals as likely outlets for publication for a specific unpublished research manuscript. In this paper we discuss one such system, Manuscript Matcher, a commercial tool developed by the authors of this paper, that uses both content and bibliometric elements in its recommendations and interface to present suggestions on likely “best fit” publications based on a user’s draft title, abstract, and citations. In the current implementation, recommendations are well received with 64% positive user feedback. We briefly discuss system development and implementation, present an overview and contextualization against similar systems, and chart future directions for both product enhancements and user research. Our particular focus is on an analysis of current performance and user feedback especially as it could inform improvements to the system.
Selecting the Right Academic Journal for Your Manuscript
After months of hard work, late nights, and hours bent over the keyboard writing and revising, you finally submit your manuscript to a scholarly journal. Whether the study represents the painstaking efforts of an international team of dozens of researchers or just the work of a single author, the buildup to this moment is both satisfying and exhausting. But the wait for the editor’s decision can make the process tedious and frustrating. Maybe the editor accepts the manuscript for review, but then the second, longer waiting game begins. Months can elapse before the reviews are returned. What will reviewer one think? What about reviewer two? And of course, everyone hopes there is no reviewer three—that individual is always bad news. If you are lucky, a paper might be conditionally accepted by the end of this first review process, but more often than not, the story ends in disappointment. This does not necessarily negatively reflect on the quality of the research but is simply the brutal reality of academic publishing.
Learned Publishing
The increasing number of journals makes it difficult to decide the right venue for manuscript submission. This becomes more complicated as the selection criteria may vary from one discipline to another. Therefore, appropriate cross-disciplinary studies are required to understand the exact concerns that dominate a particular field. The current study compares 16 factors that influence journal choices between medicine and social sciences using the answers given to a global survey of 235 open access journal authors. The results reveal that authors of both areas consider 'peer reviewed' status as the most important factor while showing the least interest to the 'number of annual subscribers' of the journal. However, compared to social science authors, those in the discipline of medicine give significantly more consideration to (1) impact factor, (2) the inclusion of the journal in abstracting and indexing services, (3) publisher's prestige, and (4) online submission with tracking facility. The factors that were identified can be categorized for both disciplines as reflecting the reputation of a journal, performance or production issues, and reliability and demand characteristics of their publication choice. The editors and publishers can use these findings to attract the best manuscripts as the study reveals the author's perception of the journal's status. The results can also be used to design recommender systems for journal submission for new authors in a discipline.
2019
With the rapidly growing number of journal outlets being produced every year, authors need assistance in selecting the most appropriate journal outlet for submitting manuscripts. The task of finding appropriate journals cannot be accomplished manually due to a number of limitations of the approach. This becomes more complicated as the selection criteria may change from one discipline to another. Therefore, to address this issue, the current research develops a journal recommender system with two components: the first component compares the content similarities between a manuscript and the existing journal articles in a corpus. This represents the content-based recommender component of the system. In addition, the system includes a knowledge-based recommender component to consider authors' publication requirements based on 15 journal selection factors. The new system makes recommendations from the open access journals indexed in the directory of open access journals for two distinct subject domains, namely medicine and social sciences. The study initially compared 16 journal factors that could influence journal choices. A web-based survey was conducted to collect information from authors who have recent publications in open access journals. According to the results, authors of both subject areas acknowledged 'peer-review' status as the most important factor, while giving least attention to the 'number of annual subscribers' of the journal. The results were used further to determine the importance of each factor from authors point of view. These factor weights were expected to use for implementing the knowledge-based recommender component. Next, appropriateness of five algorithms was examined to select the best one to implement the content-based recommender component. Overall results revealed that the BM25 similarity outperforms the other four algorithms considered in the study. The unigram language measure showed the lowest performance. A knowledge-based recommender component was developed to merge with the content-based recommender component. This component arranges the order of journals suggested by the content-based component based on aui thor's criteria of journal selection. The Gower's measure was implemented to determine the similarity between author's selection criteria and journal's available criteria. Then, a second author survey was conducted to collect information to configure the hybrid recommender system that merged content and knowledge-based components. The survey asked the authors whether and to what extent they considered the given 15 journal factors when selecting an appropriate journal for one of their recently published articles. A third author survey allowed respondents of the second author survey to rank the appropriateness of journals suggested by the hybrid recommender system from their point of view. The results indicated that the authors from medicine and social sciences agree with the recommender's suggestions by 66.2% and 58.8% respectively. Moreover, 35.5% of medicine and 40.4% of social sciences authors were suggested more appropriate journal(s) than the journal they already published in. Average performance of the system demonstrated 15% and 18% performance loss in medicine and social sciences respectively against the same suggestions after arranging according to the most appropriate order. Numbers were reported as 22.4% and 28.
2007
Traditionally, this process has either relied upon personal expertise and knowledge or upon a somewhat unsystematic and laborious process of manually searching through the literature for trends. To help with these tasks, we report three utilities that parse and summarize the results of an abstract similarity search to find appropriate journals for publication, authors with expertise in a given field, and documents similar to a submitted query. The utilities are based upon a program, eTBLAST, designed to identify similar documents within literature databases such as (but not limited to) MEDLINE. These services are freely accessible through the Internet at http:// invention.swmed.edu/etblast/etblast.shtml, where users can upload a file or paste text such as an abstract into the browser interface.
2017
On an abstract level, one is often confronted with some type of classification problem where we have one example instance or a textual query and we are looking for the class most appropriate for this instance or query. More concretely, we consider journals as classes and the papers published in certain journals as constituting and describing the respective class. In this scenario two information needs are conceivable: (1) We know one paper and we are looking for all journals which could potentially contain similar work. (2) We want to write a paper, have a first working title, and are looking for journals which could be potential targets for a submission of that paper. In this work, we transfer methods used in expert search and data fusion to find appropriate journals: Using a flat, title based search query for articles we examine voting models used in expertise retrieval with its different data fusion techniques to find and rank journals associated with the matching articles that p...
Manuscript Submission and Evaluation: Journal Characterization and Editors' Perception
Scientific journals have a great geographic reach and are used for reporting research, intended to the progress of science. As well as the research, the quality and reliability of journals should be also considered. The scientific community follows guidelines, codes of conduct in research and best practices to support its activities. Since the level of demand of quality scientific journals is constantly increasing, the editor plays a fundamental role in this scenario. Thus, this work will show the importance of the editor's management for the quality of the journal.