摘要 :
Various methods have been suggested in the literature to normalise the impact factor of journals. However, these methods have their own limitations. Present communication suggests a simple alternative method to normalise the impac...
展开
Various methods have been suggested in the literature to normalise the impact factor of journals. However, these methods have their own limitations. Present communication suggests a simple alternative method to normalise the impact factor of journals based on average impact of journals. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.5.1194.
收起
摘要 :
In this short paper we recall the (Garfield) Impact Factor of a journal, we improve and extend it, and eventually present the Total Impact Factor that reflects the most accurate impact factor.
摘要 :
The paper explores the problem of the parameter, Impact Factor for analyzing research publications of different subjects. A new tool, Absolute Impact Factor is introduced as analytical solution to bring journals of all subjects in a scale.
摘要 :
We evaluate what distinguishes a highly cited Interfaces paper from other Interfaces papers that are cited less often. Citations are used to acknowledge prior relevant research, to document sources of information, and to substanti...
展开
We evaluate what distinguishes a highly cited Interfaces paper from other Interfaces papers that are cited less often. Citations are used to acknowledge prior relevant research, to document sources of information, and to substantiate claims. As such, citations play a key role in the evolution of knowledge. More recently, citations are also being used to quantify the impact of papers and journals, a practice not without controversy, but one that motivates our work here. We find that Edelman competition papers, longer papers, tutorials, papers with larger numbers of references to prior literature, and papers with a larger number of "callouts" (a feature no longer used by Interfaces) tend to have a higher number of citations.
收起
摘要 :
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essent...
展开
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essential Science Indicators. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 has assigned 2-year IF to 1,073 OA and 7,290 subscription journals and 5-year IF to 811 OA and 6,705 subscription journals. Overall 12.8% of journals listed in JCR are OA, but a higher percentage of journals are OA in 9 fields, including multidisciplinary (31%), agriculture (19.1%) and microbiology (19.1). Overall 2-year IF is higher than 5-year IF in about 31.5% journals in both OA and subscription journals. But among physics journals, two-thirds of OA journals and 58% of subscription journals have a higher 2-year IF. For multidisciplinary journals the mean RNIF is higher for OA journals than subscription journals. Higher proportion of subscription journals had mean RNIF above 0.5: 361 of 1,073 OA journals (33.6%) and 3,857 of 7,280 subscription journals (52.9%) had a 2-year mean RNIF above 0.5 and 277 of 811 OA journals (34.2%) and 3,453 of 6705 (51.5%) subscription journals had a 5-year mean RINF above 0.5. Moving to OA has proven to be advantageous to developing country journals; it has helped a large number of Latin American and many Indian journals improve their IF.
收起
摘要 :
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essent...
展开
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essential Science Indicators. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 has assigned 2-year IF to 1,073 OA and 7,290 subscription journals and 5-year IF to 811 OA and 6,705 subscription journals. Overall 12.8% of journals listed in JCR are OA, but a higher percentage of journals are OA in 9 fields, including multidisciplinary (31%), agriculture (19.1%) and microbiology (19.1). Overall 2-year IF is higher than 5-year IF in about 31.5% journals in both OA and subscription journals. But among physics journals, two-thirds of OA journals and 58% of subscription journals have a higher 2-year IF. For multidisciplinary journals the mean RNIF is higher for OA journals than subscription journals. Higher proportion of subscription journals had mean RNIF above 0.5: 361 of 1,073 OA journals (33.6%) and 3,857 of 7,280 subscription journals (52.9%) had a 2-year mean RNIF above 0.5 and 277 of 811 OA journals (34.2%) and 3,453 of 6705 (51.5%) subscription journals had a 5-year mean RINF above 0.5. Moving to OA has proven to be advantageous to developing country journals; it has helped a large number of Latin American and many Indian journals improve their IF.
收起
摘要 :
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essent...
展开
We have compared the 2-year and 5-year impact factors (IFs), normalized impact factors (NIFs) and rank normalized impact factors (RNIFs) of open access (OA) and subscription journals across the 22 major fields delineated in Essential Science Indicators. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 has assigned 2-year IF to 1,073 OA and 7,290 subscription journals and 5-year IF to 811 OA and 6,705 subscription journals. Overall 12.8% of journals listed in JCR are OA, but a higher percentage of journals are OA in 9 fields, including multidisciplinary (31%), agriculture (19.1%) and microbiology (19.1). Overall 2-year IF is higher than 5-year IF in about 31.5% journals in both OA and subscription journals. But among physics journals, two-thirds of OA journals and 58% of subscription journals have a higher 2-year IF. For multidisciplinary journals the mean RNIF is higher for OA journals than subscription journals. Higher proportion of subscription journals had mean RNIF above 0.5: 361 of 1,073 OA journals (33.6%) and 3,857 of 7,280 subscription journals (52.9%) had a 2-year mean RNIF above 0.5 and 277 of 811 OA journals (34.2%) and 3,453 of 6705 (51.5%) subscription journals had a 5-year mean RINF above 0.5. Moving to OA has proven to be advantageous to developing country journals; it has helped a large number of Latin American and many Indian journals improve their IF.
收起
摘要 :
The objective of this study is to evaluate the importance or contributions of a journal to the development of disciplines. We introduce generalized impact factor, which involves the historical citation observed, and potential fut...
展开
The objective of this study is to evaluate the importance or contributions of a journal to the development of disciplines. We introduce generalized impact factor, which involves the historical citation observed, and potential future citation of a journal. It can be used to assess the journal influence dynamically. Gamma distributions are used to fit the distribution of the citation frequency. Variations of impact factor are used to rank the relative influence of several journals in biology.
收起
摘要 :
With reference to Vanclay (Scientometrics in press, 2012) the paper argues for a pragmatic approach to the Thomson-Reuter’s journal impact factor. The paper proposes and discusses to replace the current synchronous Thomson-Reuter...
展开
With reference to Vanclay (Scientometrics in press, 2012) the paper argues for a pragmatic approach to the Thomson-Reuter’s journal impact factor. The paper proposes and discusses to replace the current synchronous Thomson-Reuter journal impact factor by an up-to-date diachronic version (DJIF), consisting of a three-year citation window over a one year publication window. The DJIF online data collection and calculation is exemplified and compared to the present synchronous journal impact factor. The paper discusses briefly the dimensions of currency, robustness, understandability and comparability to other impact factors used in research evaluation.
收起
原文获取