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 :
Our aim deals with appraising the annual impact calculation of journals belonging to the JCR, in terms of the expected citation (with or without selfcitations) by published paper in a range of k-years. A Bayesian approach to the p...
展开
Our aim deals with appraising the annual impact calculation of journals belonging to the JCR, in terms of the expected citation (with or without selfcitations) by published paper in a range of k-years. A Bayesian approach to the problem, should reflect not only the current prestige of a journal, but also taking into account its recent trajectory. In this wide context, credibility theory becomes an adequate mechanism deciding whether journal's impact factor calculation to be more or less plausible. Under prior belief that journal quality is determined by its impact factor, we model the citation-quality process by choosing a conjugated family of the exponential class in order to obtain a net impact credibility formula. Proposed weighting schema produces the effect of smoothing out any sudden increases or decreases in the year-by-year impact factor.
收起
摘要 :
In this paper, we investigate the effects of the introduction of 5-year impact factors. We collect impact factor data for all disciplines available in the Journal Citation Reports. For all these categories, we give insights into t...
展开
In this paper, we investigate the effects of the introduction of 5-year impact factors. We collect impact factor data for all disciplines available in the Journal Citation Reports. For all these categories, we give insights into the relationship between the traditional 2-year impact factor and the new 5-year impact factor. Our main focus is to investigate whether the traditionally low impact factors for statistics journals improve with this new measure. The results show that the statistics discipline indeed benefits from the 5-year window, that is, the impact factor increases. This appears to be true for most disciplines, although the statistics discipline ranks among the top 15 (out of 171) disciplines in this respect.
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 :
Objectives: To investigate intra-specialty citation patterns of radiology articles, compared with another medical specialty: gastroenterology/hepatology. Methods: Four radiology journals (Radiology, European Radiology, Diagnostic ...
展开
Objectives: To investigate intra-specialty citation patterns of radiology articles, compared with another medical specialty: gastroenterology/hepatology. Methods: Four radiology journals (Radiology, European Radiology, Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal) and four gastroenterology/hepatology journals (Journal of Hepatology, Journal of Gastroenterology, World Journal of Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology) with similar Web of Science in-category 2020 IF ranking were selected. The original research, review, letter, and editorial articles published in these journals in 2021 were identified. The average number of intra-specialty citations per article (intra-specialty citation count) and percentage of intra-specialty citations out of total citations per article (intra-specialty citation rate) were compared between radiology and gastroenterology/hepatology articles using Student's t-test. Results: The radiology articles demonstrated a lower total citation count per article (radiology: 29.7 +/- .4 (mean +/- SEM), n = 2063; gastroenterology/hepatology: 50.1 +/- 1.4, n = 1335). The intra-specialty citation count was also lower in radiology articles than gastroenterology/hepatology articles (radiology: 12.9 +/- .2, gastroenterology/hepatology: 19.6 +/- .7; P < .001), both overall and in all article types. Additionally, the overall intra-specialty citation rate was not significantly different between the two specialties (radiology: 48.8% +/- .5%; gastroenterology/hepatology: 47.1 +/- .8%; P = .057), although the intra-specialty citation rates were higher in radiology original research and editorial article types. Conclusions: The significantly lower per-article intra-specialty citation counts in all radiology article types, a measurement that directly links to specialty IFs, may contribute to the lower impact factors of radiology journals compared with gastroenterology/hepatology ones.
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
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
原文获取