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 :
Data of publication output from 1993 to 2001 and of observed citation impact relating to citing years 1995 to 1999 were retrieved on-line from the German host DIMDI. Expected citation data (for 1995 to 2002) were calculated using ...
展开
Data of publication output from 1993 to 2001 and of observed citation impact relating to citing years 1995 to 1999 were retrieved on-line from the German host DIMDI. Expected citation data (for 1995 to 2002) were calculated using the journal impact factors supplied by ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR). For journals not included in the JCR, impact factors were constructed according to the number of citations received from journals indexed in ISI databases.
收起
摘要 :
In today's world of research publishing, authors are typically encouraged to submit manuscripts to journals with the highest possible journal impact factor (JIF). This approach inherently assumes that the higher the JIF, the more ...
展开
In today's world of research publishing, authors are typically encouraged to submit manuscripts to journals with the highest possible journal impact factor (JIF). This approach inherently assumes that the higher the JIF, the more likely the article will be cited. However, calls to move away from the JIF are becoming more common. This study analyzes the publication profiles of seven authors who are members of the Natural Resources and Environmental Systems (NRES) community of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) and who frequently publish inASABE journals. This study hypothesized that statistically significant correlations existed between the JIF and the (I) total number of citations, (2) number of citations per year,and/or (3) number of citations in the first two years after publication. Based on 999 articles published by these seven authors from 1982 to 2018, statistically significant but fairly low to moderate correlations were observed between the JIF and the total citations, citations per year, and citations in the first two years after publication. The greatest correlation was observed between the number of citations that an article received in the first two years after publication and the number of citationsper year (or the total number of citations). Therefore, ensuring an appropriate readership to generate short-term citations was more important than the JIF. When compared to high-JIF journals, there were statistically fewer citations per year and fewercitations in the first two years after publication for articles published in ASABE journals. While ASABE journal articles possess high citation longevity (i.e., cited half-life), efforts to immediately improve short-term metrics should focus on attracting high-quality research and improving article visibility. To extrapolate these findings to a wider community, future research should investigate these correlations for researchers in other ASABE technical communities and at various career stages.
收起
摘要 :
The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which ...
展开
The current status of academic publishing is worrying. Cybercriminals are now targeting academic audiences, making it necessary to inform both editors and authors about such issues. The latest involves bogus impact factors, which are challenging scholarly publishing. Legitimate impact factors are used by authors and editors to get a general idea of the audience, if any, for a particular piece or journal. The bogus metrics only add confusion in support of the cybercrimes of their initiators. In this paper, we discuss bogus impact factors, victim countries, and try to clarify the phenomena for both authors and editors.
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 :
This paper traces the evolution of measures and parameters for the evaluation of science and scientific journals from the first attempts during the early part of the last century to the development of the most popular, current and...
展开
This paper traces the evolution of measures and parameters for the evaluation of science and scientific journals from the first attempts during the early part of the last century to the development of the most popular, current and widely used metrics viz., citations, impact factor (IF) etc. The identification of measures of evaluation in science and scientific reporting paralled the post-war increase in funding in the United States of America. Biomedical and medical sciences continue to garner a major share, estimated to be almost two-thirds of total research and development funding of over USDollars 350 billion. There has been a concomitant growth in the publications in learned journals. About 1.4 million papers are published every year in an estimated 20,000 journals. In India there are an estimated 100 journals in medical sciences. With a steady increase of about 10% every year, the competition for grants, awards, rewards etc., is fierce. This unrelenting increase in number of scientists and the resultant competition, the limitation of peer review was felt. A search was on for new quantifiable measures for informed decision making for funding, awards, rewards, etc. Now virtually all major decisions all over the world are based on some data linked to publications and/or citations. The concept of citations as tool for 'evaluating' science was first proposed by Eugene Garfield in 1955. The availability of Science Citation Index (SCI), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Web of Science etc. and the relative ease with which they could be used (and abused) has spawned an entirely new area bibliometrics/scientometrics. As only a limited number of journals could be included in the Thomson Reuters (TR) databases (currently numbering about 10500), analyses based on such a limited dataset (also selected in a non-transparent way by the TR) has been widely and severely criticized by both the developed and developing countries. Yet, studies have shown that citation-based data and ind...
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