Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An assessment of quality, trustworthiness and usability of Indonesian agricultural science journals: stated preference versus revealed preference study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientific journals published in non-English languages may be less accessible to researchers worldwide. Most of them are not covered in international indexing and abstracting databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus, which can influence their impact. Scientific journals published by the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development are a case in point, and their impact cannot be ascertained due to the non-existence of a tool that can assist in assessing the performance of the journals. To address this concern, this study aims to (a) assess the quality of Indonesian agricultural science journals; (b) determine how Indonesia-based agricultural science researchers assign and calibrate trust to the journals they use; (c) determine how Indonesia-based agricultural science researchers assess the usability of the journals they read; and (d) produce an internal ranking of Indonesian agricultural journals. The study has been designed as a combination of two approaches, namely revealed preference and stated preference study. The revealed preference study involves citation analysis of the nine journals sampled. The stated preference study gauges the trustworthiness and usability of these journals from the perspectives of the researchers who use them. The revealed preference provides the Journal Quality Index whereas the stated preference study provides the Journal Trust and Journal Usability Index. The study also provides internal ranking and comparison between indicators resulted from the revealed preference and stated preference study. It is also observed that Quality and Trust indices are well correlated and indicate a good model fit with the Overall Index. On the other hand, Usability Index is negatively correlated and shows very less model fit with the Overall Index.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrizah, A., Badawi, F., Zoohorian-Fooladi, N., Nicholas, D., Jamali, H., & Norliya, A. K. (2015). Trust and authority in the periphery of world scholarly communication: A Malaysian focus group study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 20(2), 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2015). LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: A stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1083–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Edzan, N. N., & Koh, A. P. (2013). Citation performance of Malaysian scholarly journals in the Web of Science, 2006–2010. Serials Review., 39(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, S. N., Young, H. C., & Ali, N. M. (1996). Determining the quality of publications and research for tenure or promotion decisions: A preliminary checklist to assist. Library Review, 45(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auburn University Libraries. (2012). Assessing journal quality. Retrieved from http://libguides.auburn.edu/content.php?pid=236566.

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Rankings of information and library science journals by JIF and by h-type indices. Journal of Informetrics, 4(2), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., Chang, C., & Chang, Y. (2013). Ranking of finance journals: Some Google Scholar citation perspectives. Journal of Empirical Finance, 21, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherkowski, S., Currie, R., & Hilton, S. (2012). Who should rank our journals … and based on what? Journal of Educational Administration, 50(2), 206–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezema, I. J., & Eze, A. B. (2012). Analysis of cited information sources in Nigerian agricultural research with emphasis on animal health and production. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 4(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1998). The diverse role of citation indexes in scientific research. Revista de Investigacion Clinica, 50(6), 497–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development. (2009). Five years of agricultural research and development 2002–2006: Contribution to the national economy and farmers’ welfare. Jakarta: IAARD.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Standards Organization (ISO). (1994). Ergonomic requirement for office work with visual display terminals. Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO DIS 9241-11). London: International Standards Organization.

  • Jamali, Hamid R., Nicholas, David, Watkinson, Anthony, Herman, Eti, Tenopir, Carol, Levine, Kenneth, et al. (2014). How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences. Library & Information Science Research, 36, 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katerattanakul, P., & Han, B. (2003). Are European IS journal under rated? An answer based on citation analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 12, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Choemprayong, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Scholarly journal information-seeking and reading patterns of faculty at five US universities. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 126–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Kumar, S. (2011). Citation analysis of Journal of Oilseed Research. The 8th International CALIBER (pp. 511–527). Goa University: Goa, India. 2-4 March 2011.

  • Kurmis, T. P., & Kurmis, A. P. (2010). Self-citation rates among medical imaging journals and a possible association with impact factor [Electronic version]. Radiography, 16, 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. (2012). Pedoman Akreditasi Majalah Ilmiah: Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia Nomor 04/E/2011. Jakarta: IAARD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, D., Lawb, R., Kucukust, D., & Guillet, B. D. (2014). How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world’s excellent reviewers. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokker, L., Haynes, R. B., Rong, C., McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Walter, S. D. (2012). How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? A retrospective cohort study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(1), 28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., Redman, S., & Curac, N. (2011). Public health research outputs from efficacy to dissemination: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health, 11, 934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, H., Harvey, C., & Kelly, A. (2009). Journal rankings and the ABS journal quality guide. Management Decision, 47(9), 1441–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., et al. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/.

  • Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl–Davis study. College & Research Libraries, 66(44), 341–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, J. (2014). Core journals in library and information science: Developing a methodology for ranking LIS journals. College & Research Libraries, 75(1), 66–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D. F., & Northam, S. (2011). Impact factors in nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 59(1), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sari, R. F., & Kurniawan, A. (2010). Implementation of Indonesian electronic citation system based on web extraction techniques. In 3rd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 494–497), 9–10 January, Phuket, Thailand.

  • Shahbodaghi, A., & Sajjadi, S. (2010). A scientometric investigation of the publication trends of Iranian medical informatics articles based on ISI Citation Databases. Journal of Paramedical Science., 1(4), 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sombatsompop, N., Chancheewa, S., Markpin, T., Premkamolnetr, N., Ittiritmeechai, S., Wongkaew, C., et al. (2012). Thai-journal Citation Index (TCI) Centre of Thailand: Experiences, lessons learned, and ongoing development. In Proceeding: international conference on journal citation systems in Asia Pacific countries (pp. 17–23), 22 May 2012, Pan Pacific KLIA, Malaysia. Malaysian Citation Centre, Putrajaya.

  • Sutardji. (2011). Kajian Artikel Tanaman Pangan Pada Jurnal Penelitian Pertanian Tanaman Pangan. Jurnal Perpustakaan Pertanian, 20(1), 1–9.

  • Swan, A. (1999). ‘WHAT AUTHORS WANT’: The ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing, 12(3), 170–172.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influence. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3):279–296.version]. Hydrobiologia, 653, 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2001). The use and value of scientific journals: Past, present and future. Serials, 14(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Reuters. (2012a). How to calculate a five-year impact factor. Retrieved from http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_fiveyr_if.htm#five_year_if.

  • Thomson Reuters. (2012b). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/.

  • Tsai, C. F. (2014). Citation impact analysis of top ranked computer science journals and their rankings. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W. L., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu-Wei, C., & Mu-Hsuan, H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work of A.Abrizah and Muzammil Tahira was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (HIR-MOHE) UM.C/HIR/MOHE/FCSIT/11.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indonesian Agency of Agricultural Research and Development, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Bambang Winarko

  2. Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    A. Abrizah & Muzammil Tahira

Authors
  1. Bambang Winarko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Abrizah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muzammil Tahira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Abrizah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winarko, B., Abrizah, A. & Tahira, M. An assessment of quality, trustworthiness and usability of Indonesian agricultural science journals: stated preference versus revealed preference study. Scientometrics 108, 289–304 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1970-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1970-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation