Analysis of academic publishing in Trakya University journals

Abstract

Background: Although Turkey publishes more than 3000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, fewer than 5% of them are covered by major indexing databases, and only 1 of the 10 scientific journals published by Trakya University (Turkey) is among those quality journals. In November 2017, Trakya University organized a workshop titled ‘Increasing the quality of academic journals at Trakya University’, the ultimate goal of which was to bring together all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing, to review the criteria of publishing quality, and to recommend measures to enhance the quality of academic journals published from Turkey. Objectives: To review the current status of academic journals published by Trakya University in terms of international publishing standards, to devise measures to enhance their quality, and also to help other journals do the same. Methods: Information was collected from the websites of 10 academic journals pub-lished by Trakya University in the fields of natural, medical, and social sciences to assess the extent to which each journal met a set of criteria defining quality academic publishing. These journals were then compared in terms of their success in meeting those criteria. Results: No single measure can improve the quality of all the ten journals published by Trakya University. Balkan Medical Journal topped the list in that it satisfied nearly all the criteria whereas the journals that met the fewest criteria were Trakya University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Trakya University Journal of Faculty of Letters , and Journal of Balkan Libraries Union . Timeliness in ensuring ethical standards was the criterion most often met by the journals, but all 10 failed to meet the criteria related to data accessibility and good reporting guidelines. Of the 8 crite-ria related to fairness of the blind-review processes, all 10 met 6 but none met all 8. In terms of transparency and implementation of best practices, the highest compliance was in terms of the criteria related to the name of the journal, its governing body, and archiving, but no journal made any effort to market itself, that is, to expand its circulation. Conclusions: The strengths and weaknesses of each journal with reference to the quality of academic publishing were highlighted. The method described in the paper can also be used for evaluating other journals.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.