《沈阳工程学院学报》（自然版）发展现状分析

从影响因子、总被引频次、作者层次、发稿情况四个方面,对《沈阳工程学院学报》（自然版）与辽宁省内其他同类几家学报进行了比较,发现目前学报存在缺乏高质量稿源、高水平作者等问题。为此,提出提升学报质量的措施：加强特色栏目建设,吸引高水平稿件;开拓作者资源,建立稳定的作者队伍;扩大稿源,加强稿件规划;提高编辑素质,加强编辑队伍建设;坚持严格的审稿程序和审稿机制,提高编校质量。     

高校学报载文、作者及引文统计分析——以2010-2012年《南京财经大学学报》为例

应用文献计量学的方法,作者对2010-2012年共18期《南京财经大学学报》作了统计分析。结果表明：《学报》每期平均载文17篇,侧重于金融财税、产业经济和财务会计等栏目;校内载文呈逐年减少趋势,基金项目论文数占半数以上,平均出版时滞2_3个月;论文舍著率57．76％,合作度1．73,第一作者具有高级职称的约占50％;篇均引文11．5篇,英文引文约占2／5。     

科技期刊出版业务流程的案例研究

本文基于业务沆程再造理论、数字内容理论和开放存取的技术方法,针对两种典型的样本期刊,对出版业务流程进行了对比研究。案例研究发现,传统期刊的出版业务流程在成本、质量、服务、速度等方面存在严重的缺欠,而再造后的网络期刊出版节约了时间和资金,提高了质量,加强了互动的服务,提高了效率,实现了整个出版工作的协调一致,取得了戏剧性的效果。基于此,本文提出对科技期刊业务流程再造的思考。     

我国会计类核心期刊的现状分析与启示——兼论《上海立信会计学院学报》的改进

文章分析了国内14种会计类核心期刊的现状,在此基础上,探索了《上海立信会计学院学报》改进与发展之路,以期为国内会计类学术刊物与财经类高校学报的规范与发展提供有益的启示。     

GRADING JOURNALS IN ECONOMICS: THE ABCS OF THE ABDC

Many institutions and governments grade academic journals for the evaluation of research. In this paper, we implement a multi-bibliometric methodology for the evaluation of such a list of journal grades. We examine the grades assigned by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) for over 750 journals in the fields of economics and statistics. Firstly, we generate up to 48 bibliometric-based grades for each journal based on the grade distribution implied by the ABDC. Secondly, we categorize the bibliometrics employing a cluster analysis of an interrater agreement statistic. Thirdly, we present a visualization of the consistency of the grading by journal. Finally, we list those journals where the majority of the matched bibliometrics indicate a higher or lower grade than their ABDC grade.     

Publishing characteristics,geographic dispersion and research traditions of recent international accounting education research

This paper describes, analyses and critiques accounting education research over the period 2005–2009. In doing so, it compares and contrasts the distinctive North American research tradition with that of Europe and the rest of the world. Six journals and 446 publications by 963 authors were included in the sample frame, along with a further 70 publications in other journals. The findings identify distinguishing characteristics among these publications that range from the composition of their editorial teams to the nature and type of output they publish. Evidence was found of geographic dominance and divergent research traditions which has mitigated against the development of a genuinely international accounting education research community. Possibilities for further research are identified and guidance for researchers publishing in this field is presented.     

Telecommunications policy: The medium is the message

Reflecting on his involvement with Telecommunications Policy, since 1979, this article by one of its first editors Colin Blackman, contributes to the 40^th anniversary issue. It describes the launch of the journal, the unique nature of its publisher, IPC Science & Technology Press, the way in which the field has changed over the past four decades, and makes some personal observations about the changing nature of the world of journal publishing.     

How to derive consensus among various marketing journal rankings?

Despite the increasing popularity of journal rankings to evaluate the quality of research contributions, the individual rankings for journals that ranked below the top tier of publications usually feature only modest agreement. Attempts to merge rankings into meta-rankings suffer from some methodological issues, such as mixed measurement scales and incomplete data. This paper addresses the issue of how to construct suitable aggregates of individual journal rankings, using an optimization-based consensus ranking approach. The authors apply the proposed method to a subset of marketing-related journals from a list of collected journal rankings. Next, the paper studies the stability of the derived consensus solution, and the degeneration effects that occur when excluding journals and/or rankings. Finally, the authors investigate the similarities/dissimilarities of the consensus with a naive meta-ranking and with individual rankings. The results show that, even though journals are not uniformly ranked, one may derive a consensus ranking with considerably high agreement with the individual rankings.