Abstract
Bibliometric analyses based on citations are most often at the forefront where scientific publications are concerned. A fact often neglected is that the visibility and availability of scientific publications are basic prerequisites for future reading, citation and influence. Journal visibility can be significantly improved by providing open access and availability through popular online databases. In this study, we investigated 112 mapping science journals to determine the visibility of scientific publications in a smaller interdisciplinary field. In addition to other data, we collected data on open access, indexing, subject areas within the Web of Science and Scopus bibliographic databases and the number of journals in these databases. The coverage of mapping science journals in 14 bibliographic databases was analyzed. Only 11% of the titles from the journals analyzed were indexed in 10 or more databases. Google Scholar, Scopus, Bibliotheca Cartographica and GEOBASE include most mapping science journals, while only 19 are included in Web of Science. A comparison indicates more thorough coverage of an individual journal in Web of Science than in Scopus. Only a few mapping science journals appear in the Directory of Open Access Journals, despite the large number of open access mapping science journals available. Adding subject categories within databases does not facilitate finding mapping science journals, which are dispersed among numerous, mostly inadequate categories in the Web of Science and Scopus databases.
Highlights
Scientific publishing, especially periodical publishing, has been extremely dynamic ever since it began
Indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was registered, and based on our previous research, we identified a large number of mapping science journals whose content was provided in open access
Google Scholar (GS) has been criticized for its non-transparent policy, insufficient volume and structure of bibliographic entries, poor search quality, issues with diacritical signs [Harzing, 2010], overblown results, incomplete journal content, inability to identify authors and citations, inclusion of “dubious” material without scientific value, and the presence of “bibliographic absurdities” due to poor interpretation of metadata [Jacsó, 2005), this comprehensive database contains valuable information, is easy to use and its content can compete with that of many subscription-based information services [Chen, 2010; Clermont & Dyckhoff, 2012; Delgado-López-Cózar & Cabezas-Clavijo, 2013; Mayr & Walter, 2008; Meier & Conkling, 2008], so it provides a good insight into mapping science
Summary
Scientific publishing, especially periodical publishing, has been extremely dynamic ever since it began. Efforts to estimate the number of currently active journals have been the subject of several published papers. Using Ulrich’s Periodical Directory and applying Bradford’s law to Thomson Reuters citation databases, Mabe estimated the total number of active reviewed journals at 15,000–16,000 [Mabe, 2003]. Larsen and von Ins compared various research results with their own data collected from analyzing journal growth in various index publications, and estimated the number of active reviewed journals at 24,000. They concluded journal growth varies significantly from one field to another and that there has been an increase in other communication channels for publishing papers, such as conference proceedings, open archives and personal websites [Larsen & von Ins, 2010]. The most popular journal register, the aforementioned Ulrich’s Periodical Directory, currently includes more than 335,000 journals (published by more than 90,000 publishers), of which 28,135 were active, reviewed journals in August 2012 [Harnad, 2012]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
