Journal Statistics reported by Crossref

A few weeks ago Virtus Interpress introduced a new part of its open access policy – Virtus Scholar Statistics Platform. With such initiative, we stand by the idea that OA publications is the future of scholarly publishing. The scholarly research is to be shared freely among the representatives of different corporate schools around the world. This helps in erasing the boundaries and enhances future cooperation that will, in its turn, enable for the theoretical results to be practically applied in corporate governance.

It is necessary to remind that statistics generated through our Virtus Scholar Statistics Platform is a separate part of global statistics. Currently, we would like to present another part of views statistics which is generated by external platforms such as Crossref.

CrossRef has created a system to automatically email publishers statistics on the number of DOI resolutions through the DOI proxy server on a month-by-month basis. These numbers give an indication of the traffic coming to publisher’s site from users clicking DOIs. The DOI links are largely from links in other publishers’ journal references to our articles, but they are also from DOI links in secondary databases, links from libraries using DOIs, and even DOIs in used in print versions.

When a researcher clicks on a DOI link for one of our articles, that counts as one DOI resolution. The following figures and article rating provide an important measure of the effectiveness of our participation in CrossRef.

First of all, here is a last month top-10 of the most popular articles published by Virtus Interpress (based on the total number of DOI resolutions):

  1. Stenheim, T., & Madsen, D. Ø. (2017). The shift of accounting models and accounting quality: The case of Norwegian GAAP. Corporate Ownership & Control, 14(4-1), 289-300.
  2. Gottschalk, P. (2017). Convenience in white-collar crime: A resource perspective. Risk governance & control: financial markets & institutions, 7(2), 28-37.
  3. Silkoset, R., Nygaard, A., Kidwell, R.E.(2016). Differential effects of plural ownership and governance mechanisms in limiting shirkers and free riders. Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(2), 113-131.
  4. Santen, B., & Donker, H. (2009). Board diversity in the perspective of financial distress: Empirical evidence from the Netherlands. Corporate Board: role, duties and composition, 5(2), 23-35.
  5. Drogalas, G., Anagnostopoulou, E., Koutoupis, A., & Pazarskis, M. (2018). Relationship between internal audit factors and corporate governance. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 7(3), 13-17.
  6. Kang, H., Leung, S., Morris, R. D., & Gray, S. J. (2013). Corporate governance and earnings management: An Australian perspective. Corporate Ownership & Control, 10(3), 95-113.
  7. Dzomira, S. (2014). Electronic fraud (cyber fraud) risk in the banking industry, Zimbabwe. Risk governance & control: financial markets & institutions, 4(2), 17-27.
  8. Lemonakis, C., Garefalakis, A., Georgios, X., & Haritaki, H. (2018). A study of the banks’ efficiency in crisis: Empirical evidence from Eastern Europe, Balkans and Turkey. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 7(3), 8-12.
  9. Bronk, C. (2014). Corporate risk, intelligence and governance in the time of cyber threat. Risk governance & control: financial markets & institutions, 4(1), 16-22.
  10. Oinarov, A., & Eshimova, D. (2017). Project management methodology in the public and private sector: The case of an emerging market. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 6(1), 26-37.

Secondly, the following figure presents the dynamics of the number of DOI resolutions for the last 12 months:

And, finally, this diagram shows the resolution counts (in terms of separate Virtus Interpress journals) for the previous month:

We are planning to keep our network posted regarding download and views statistics provided as well as by our Virtus Scholar Statistics Platform and other external platforms.