Considerable efforts and resources are invested by scholarly publishers to advance and promote their journals. These efforts take the form of strategic planning and employed content and publisher editors who provide preprint and post-print assistance to editorial boards, to enhance discoverability and viewership of their journals. However, the effects of these investments are not evaluated, as most assess journals as standalone entities often based on citation metrics. This work aims to quantify the competence of scholarly publishers using a novel metric. The proposed metric, coined as scholarly engagement, is based on a citation-to-view ratio (CVR) garnered by the journals’ articles. The selection of journals takes into consideration broad spectra of journal position across different categories, ranks and timeline. The evaluation uses more than 298,000 articles published in the past ten years. Our quantitative study demonstrates robustness of the proposed metric and its ability to distinguish scholarly publishers.

学术出版商投入了大量的精力和资源来发展和推广他们的期刊。这些努力采取战略规划的形式，并聘请内容和出版商编辑为编辑委员会提供预印和印后协助，以提高其期刊的可发现性和收视率。但是，这些投资的效果并未得到评估，因为大多数评估期刊通常都是基于引用指标将期刊作为独立实体进行评估。这项工作旨在使用一种新颖的指标来量化学术出版商的能力。被称为学术参与度的拟议指标基于期刊文章获得的引用浏览率 (CVR)。期刊的选择考虑了不同类别、排名和时间线的期刊位置的广泛范围。评估使用了过去十年发表的超过 298,000 篇文章。我们的定量研究证明了拟议指标的稳健性及其区分学术出版商的能力。