Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics and scientometrics
• Research evaluation
• Physics and Astronomy journals

Background:

• Current bibliometric measures (e.g., impact factor, quartile) may bias quality assessment for regional or new journals.
• Information asymmetry exists between the academic community and journal management regarding journal quality.
• Traditional metrics may under-evaluate the quality of regional journals, portraying them as low-quality venues.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose an alternative approach for evaluating journal quality signals using authors' publication track records.
• To explore differences in quality signals from regional journals compared to traditional metrics.
• To reduce information asymmetry in research evaluation policies.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 50,477 articles and reviews from 83 regional Physics and Astronomy journals (2014-2019).
• Extraction of publication data for 73,866 authors and their 329,245 additional publications in Scopus-indexed journals.
• Contrast of traditional journal-level bibliometric measures with generalized author-level publishing records.

Main Results:

• Traditional journal-level measures (quartile, CiteScore percentile, SJR) tend to under-evaluate regional journal quality.
• Author-level measures, such as share of papers in Nature Index journals, provide positive quality signals.
• Author-based analysis allows for subdivision of regional journals based on publishing strategies.

Conclusions:

• Author-based metrics offer a more nuanced and accurate assessment of regional journal quality.
• Research evaluation policies should consider author-level data to better value regional journals.
• Increased recognition of regional journals can enhance international visibility and impact, benefiting researchers and institutions.