Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 1237–1260 | Cite as

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

  • Sungbin Youk
  • Hee Sun ParkEmail author
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

This study examined the geographical diversity and publication patterns of editors and editorial board members in communication journals. The results indicated that the diversity of the editorial community was related to the journal’s affiliated association, international orientation, and interdisciplinary nature. As for the publications, publishing in the editors’ and editorial board members’ own journals was not a norm. In addition, the type of their publications was related to the number of authors; an editor or an editorial board member is more likely to publish an empirical paper than a non-empirical one when it is written with other scholars. As for citations, the average citation count of the endogenous publications was below the journals’ citation count per publication. Furthermore, the endogenous publication’s total number of citations was not related to whether the editors and editorial board members were affiliated to institutions located in the United States. However, the journals’ affiliated associations, the number of authors, and the publication type and year were related to the total number of citations.

Keywords

Communication Editors Editorial board members World polity theory Endogenous publication Citation count 

Notes

Funding

This research was partially funded by the School of Media and Communication at Korea University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. About ICA. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.icahdq.org/page/About.
  2. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social science. Current Sociology, 51, 599–613.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, P., & Rigter, H. (1985). Editors of medical journals: Who and from where. Scientometrics, 7, 11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baue, A. E. (1979). Writing a good abstract is not abstract writing. The Archives of Surgery, 1124, 11–12.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1979.01370250013001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beattie, V. A., & Ryan, R. J. (1989). Performance indices and related measures of journal reputation in accounting. The British Accounting Review, 21, 267–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-8389(89)90097-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 198–216.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2004.13500489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer, J. M. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. The Sociological Quarterly, 19, 68–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1978.tb02172.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bošnjak, L., Puljak, L., Vukojević, K., & Marušić, A. (2011). Analysis of a number and type of publications that editors publish in their own journals: Case study of scholarly journals in Croatia. Scientometrics, 86, 227–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0207-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunz, U. (2005). Publish or perish: A limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. Journal of Communication, 55, 703–720.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03018.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campanario, J. M. (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, 47, 184–192.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:3%3c184:AID-ASI2%3e3.0.CO;2-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2. Science Communication, 19, 277–306.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campanario, J. M., González, L., & Rodríguez, C. (2006). Structure of the impact factor of academic journals in the field of education and educational psychology: Citations from editorial board members. Scientometrics, 69, 37–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0137-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caruso, M. (2008). World systems, world society, world polity: Theoretical insights for a global history of education. History of Education, 37, 825–840.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00467600802158256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng, C., & Dunn, M. (2015). Health literacy and the internet: A study on the readability of Australian online health information. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39, 309–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corley, K. G., & Schinoff, B. S. (2017). Who, me? An inductive study of novice experts in the context of how editors come to understand theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31, 4–27.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crosier, K. (2004). How effectively do marketing journals transfer useful learning from scholars to practitioners? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 540–556.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500410551923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (2008). Perspective—Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19, 177–183.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demeter, M. (2017). The core-periphery problem in communication research: A network analysis of leading publication. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33, 402–420.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9535-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Demeter, M. (2018a). Changing center and stagnant periphery in communication and media studies: National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication from 2013 to 2017. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2893–2921.Google Scholar
  21. Demeter, M. (2018b). Nobody notices it? Qualitative inequalities of leading publications in communication and media studies research. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1001–1031.Google Scholar
  22. Demeter, M. (2018c). Theorizing international inequalities in communication and media studies. A field theory approach. KOME—An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 6(2), 92–110.  https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.75692.94.Google Scholar
  23. Demeter, M. (2018d). The winner takes it all: International inequality in communication and media studies today. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96, 37–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018792270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 861–873.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dusansky, R., & Vernon, C. J. (1998). Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(1), 157–170.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.1.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50, 833–859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121–150.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forrester, J. P., & Watson, S. S. (1994). An assessment of public administration journals: The perceptivity of editors and editorial board members. Public Administration Review, 54, 474–482.  https://doi.org/10.2307/976433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giménez-Toledo, E., Román-Román, A., Perdiguero, P., & Palencia, I. (2009). The editorial boards of Spanish scholarly journals: What are they like? What should they be like? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guiding principles. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.icahdq.org/page/MissionStatement.
  32. Goyanes, M. (2019). Editorial boards in communication sciences journals: Plurality or standardization? The International Communication Gazette.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518825322.Google Scholar
  33. Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A., Fiack, S., Scott-Lichter, D., & Robison, A. (2007). Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A publisher’s perspective. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 61(s152), 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01230.x.Google Scholar
  34. Graves, P. E., Marchand, J. R., & Thompson, R. (1982). Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. The American Economic Review, 72, 1131–1141.Google Scholar
  35. Hartley, J. (1997). Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? Learned Publishing, 10, 313–317.  https://doi.org/10.1087/09531519750146789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartley, J. (2003). Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: The case of structure. Science Communication, 24, 366–379.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547002250301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harzing, A.-W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach. Management International Review, 53, 169–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0124-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaufman, G. G. (1984). Rankings of finance departments by faculty representation on editorial boards of professional journals: A note. The Journal of Finance, 39, 1189–1197.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03902.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kitchenham, B. A., Pearl Breeton, O., Owen, S., Butcher, J., & Jefferies, C. (2008). Length and readability of structured software engineering abstracts. The Institution of Engineering and Technology Software, 2, 37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen:20070044.Google Scholar
  40. Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 139–151.  https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/55.1.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lei, L., & Yan, S. (2016). Readability and citations in information science: Evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012). Scientometrics, 108, 1155–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2036-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luty, J., Arokiadass, S. M. R., Easow, J. M., & Anapreddy, J. R. (2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 200–202.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.026740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mai, J., Makarević, J., Juengel, E., Ackermann, H., Nelson, K., Bartsch, G., et al. (2013). I publish in I edit? Do editorial board members of urologic journals preferentially publish their own scientific work? PLoS ONE, 8(12), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, D. G., & Dimmick, J. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research, 30, 60–79.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202239026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mcinnes, N., & Haglund, B. J. A. (2011). Readability of online health information: Implications for health literacy. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 36, 173–189.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer, J. W. (1999). The changing cultural content of the nation-state: A world society perspective. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), State/culture: State-formation after the cultural turn (pp. 123–143). London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 425–431.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mort, G. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Kiel, G., & Soutar, G. N. (2004). Perceptions of marketing journals by senior academics in Australia and New Zealand. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(2), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nisonger, T. E. (2002). The relationship between international editorial board composition and citation measures in political science, business, and genetics journals. Scientometrics, 54, 257–268.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016065929026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliver, B., Dallas, M. J., & Eckman, M. (1998). Communication of empirical knowledge: An investigation of readability and quality of research in textiles and apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16, 27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9801600104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning, 37, 769–789.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pagel, P. S., & Hudetz, J. A. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of anaesthesia journal editorial board members: Correlation between journal impact factor and the median h-index of its board members. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 107, 357–361.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 124–129.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.31413869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2005). What does it take to get published in a top marketing journal from Australasia. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Macromarketing Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  55. San Martín-Rodríguez, L., Beaulieu, M. D., D’Amour, D., & Ferrada-Videla, M. (2005). The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 132–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500082677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sauer, R. D. (1988). Estimates of the returns to quality and coauthorship in economic academia author. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sawyer, A. G., Laran, J., & Xu, J. (2008). The readability of marketing journals: Are award-winning articles better written? Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Søreide, K., Ringdal, K. G., & Lossius, H. M. (2010). Submission policy, peer-review and editorial board members: Interesting conflicts and conflicts of interest. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation, & Emergency Medicine, 18, 56.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-18-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Strang, D., & Siler, K. (2015). Revising as reframing: Original submissions versus published papers in Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005–2009. Sociological Theory, 33, 71–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275115572152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Svensson, G. (2005). Ethnocentricity in top marketing journals. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23, 422–434.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510612618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thomas, G. M. (2009). World polity, world culture, world society. International Political Sociology, 3, 115–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00066_4.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Toth, J. (2018). “U.S. journals can afford to remain regional, but we can not.” Author distribution-based internationality of Eastern European communication journals. KOME—An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 6(2), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.2018.21.Google Scholar
  63. Tuckman, H. P., & Leahey, J. (1975). What is an article worth? Journal of Political Economy, 83, 951–968.  https://doi.org/10.1086/260371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tung, R. L. (2006). North American research agenda and methodologies: Past imperfect, future—Limitless possibilities. Asian Business & Management, 5, 23–35.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  66. Wiedemann, T., & Meyen, M. (2016). Internationalization through Americanization: The expansion of the International Communication Association’s leadership to the world. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1489–1509.Google Scholar
  67. What is NCA? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.natcom.org/about-nca/what-nca.
  68. Zimmerman, J. L. (1989). Improving a manuscript’s readability and likelihood of publication. Issues in Accounting Education, 4, 458–466.Google Scholar
  69. Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982a). Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals. Scientometrics, 41, 69–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982b). Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals. A new science indicator. Scientometrics, 4, 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media and CommunicationKorea UniversityJangsu-gunRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of Media and CommunicationKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations