[Purposes] Conventional journal evaluation system fails to keep up with the modern publishing and dissemination modes of journals in the background of open science. We intend to design a route for journal impact evaluation amid open science for effective assessment of the performance of journals. [Methods] We summarized the connotation of open science, then summed up the characteristics of journal publication and dissemination in terms of open science with the methods of literature research and network research, and developed the route for journal impact evaluation against the backdrop of open science. Thereby, relevant indicators were extracted, and a journal evaluation model with the opening prevalence and accessibility as the primary indicators and 15 secondary indicators was established. [Findings] The evaluation results were compared with the impact factors and the ratings in the Hierarchical Catalog of Quality Scientific Journals, and it was found that the evaluation indexes of journal impact from the perspective of open science designed in this paper reflected the impact of journals in a more comprehensive way than impact factor and other indexes. [Conclusions] The journal evaluation system developed in this paper is reasonable and feasible, and the new indexes can supplement the conventional journal evaluation system.

[Purposes] This paper provides suggestions to Chinese scientific journals in the trend of open science. [Methods] By elaborating the details of journals and scholarly publishing in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, we summarized the suggestions of stakeholders and compared the differences of journals and scholarly publishing in open science and open access. [Findings] The UNESCO's Recommendation on Open Science covers direct requirements, participation methods, and indirect impacts of open science on journals and scholarly publishing. Given the opinions of stakeholders on the intellectual property, business models, and peer review methods of scholarly publishing in open science, it is confirmed that the requirements for journals are more strictly in open science than those in open access. [Conclusions] In response to open science, Chinese scientific journals should formulate relevant policies, innovate publishing forms and new services, introduce or develop information technologies, and update research evaluation methods.

[Purposes] This paper aims to study the background and application of TOP Factor, a new journal evaluation system committing to openness and transparency, which is expected to serve as a reference for the scientific journals in China to participate in and promote the open science movement. [Methods] Network research, literature research, and data analysis were adopted to explore the background of TOP Factor and the TOP Factor scores of more than 340 journals. [Findings] TOP Factor emerged as the academic community had realized the limitations of the impact factor-based evaluation system and called for a more rigorous and transparent journal evaluation system that can objectively reflect the quality of journals' content and improve research transparency and reproducibility. The scoring system awards journals zero to three points for each measure and psychology journals have won the highest score so far. [Conclusions] Openness and transparency have become a major trend in academic publishing. TOP Factor system promotes open science from the source of publication. As its advantages in promoting data openness and sharing and improving the repeatability of academic outcomes gradually become prominent, more and more journals and publishers will use it. China's scientific journals should emphasize this trend and actively formulate policies related to open science, thereby establishing an open and transparent academy ecosystem.

[Purposes] Based on the Transparency and Openness Promotion Factor (TOP factor,proposed by Center for Open Science in February 2020), an empirical analysis of transparency and openness of library and information science journals (LIS journals) is conducted to provide references for the open science practices of scientific journals. [Methods] LIS journals indexed by Journal Citation Reports (2018) and CSSCI (2019-2020) were selected as the samples. Each journal was evaluated and scored according to the standards of TOP factor. We compared the differences of TOP factor scores of LIS journals indexed by JCR and CSSCI. Moreover, Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relations among the TOP factors, journal impact factors, and total cites. [Findings] The TOP factor scores of LIS journals indexed by JCR and CSSCI are low. However, comparing to LIS journals indexed by CSSCI, the LIS journals indexed by JCR have higher TOP factor scores. The four dimensions (including data citation, data transparency, analytical code transparency, and materials transparency) of TOP factor and the total score of TOP factor have significant and positive correlations with journal impact factors and total cites. [Conclusions] Scientific journals can make policies for promoting transparency and openness according to the four dimensions of TOP factor.

[Purposes] This paper aims to provide policy and practice references for the development of scientific journals and the transformation of academic publishing in China. [Methods] Through internet surveys and policy tracking and scanning, this paper summarized the latest open policies and practices of four major international publishing groups in literature reading and accessing, article publication, cooperation with stakeholders, and service innovation. [Findings] The four major international publishing groups redefine the way of open science by negotiating and cooperating with scientific research funding agencies, vigorously expanding their business territory, developing new open access models, and developing new open access journals. [Conclusions] The main body of scientific research in China should negotiate with publishers in a collective form, strengthen the publicity to scientific researchers and communicate with them, vigorously develop local open access journals, take the lead in controlling data rights and interests, and continue to pay attention to and investigate new challenges in the practice of open access.

[Purposes] The study aims to accurately know about the attitudes and cognition of journal editors and scientific researchers on journal open scientific data, and provide data support for the formulation of related policies on journal scientific data openness. [Methods] Based on literature research and face to face consultation, the contents of the survey were determined. And the questions, such as what the future prospect of journal open scientific data was, what they worried about, and what was necessary during the journal open scientific data process, were investigated via the platform of Wenjuanxing for editors and researchers. A total of 950 researchers and 205 editors answered the questions. [Findings] Many researchers have not been required to deliver the original data when submitting papers, and many editors did not understand the real meaning of journal open scientific data in China. Both editors and researchers believe that journal open scientific data is beneficial for the science research, and will be the development direction of scientific journals, however, some efforts should be made. Incentive and mandatory measures could be used to promote the journal open scientific data. [Conclusions] Scientific journals should strengthen the publicity of open scientific data, deepen the understanding of journal editors and scientific researchers on open scientific data. It is suggested that original data should be paid more attention to, and editors should discuss frequently with authors about data, for the preparation for the future journal open scientific data.

［Purposes］This paper aims to systematically introduce the concept, type, current situation and impact of Research Elements Publishing (REP), and to explore its significance and potential influence in the background of Open Science.［Methods］The concept, type, and current situation of REP were investigated by using the network survey method, and the impact of REP articles was analyzed by using data exported from Web of Science (WoS).［Findings］REP is a new peer-reviewed article format that focuses on elements involved in the research cycle： data, software, materials and methods. According to WoS, REP has received attention manifested by citation times.［Conclusions］ Some elements of the research cycle deserve more attention than they usually take in traditional journals. As an emerging scholarly publication type, REP provides a brand new publishing platform for scientists. It can better serve scholarly communication in the background of Open Science. However, REP also has limitations such as no solid quality assurance mechanism etc.