Journal impact factors,h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology

Bird, Steven B.

doi:10.1007/bf03161211

Cited by 32 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be one reason why journals like Nature, Science, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine, journals whose readers and content entail the entire scope of medicine and science, are always among the journals with the highest impact factors (Table 1). Since toxicology is a very narrow field with a very small and specialized readership, it should not be surprising that toxicology journals have small JIFs (Table 2); this has been confirmed by two well done reviews on JIF in toxicology journals [3,7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Jang

Rusyniak

2011

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Jang

Rusyniak

2011

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…La correlación entre el FI y el índice H en los estudios representados en la tabla4 muestra mayor variabilidad, probablemente debidaal conjunto de revistas utilizado en cada uno de ellos; así por ejemplo, se han encontrado valores altos de 0,88 en revistas de psiquiatría (Bador; Lafouge, 2011), de 0,77 en revistas de toxicología (Bird, 2008) y de 0,64 en revistas de biología reproductiva (Han;Yu;Wang, 2010).El índice H depende del número de años de la revista y del número de artículos publicados, mientras que los factores de impacto del periodo de citación y publicación.…”

Section: Revista General De Información Y Documentaciónunclassified

Correlación entre indicadores bibliométricos en revistas de Web of Science y Scopus

Oliván

Lacruz

2015

Rev. Gen. Inf. Doc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: Este artículo analiza el grado de correlación existente entre diferentes indicadores bibliométricos obtenidos de las revistas indizadas en 2013 enWoS y Scopus. Se han seleccionado los indicadores Factor de Impacto (FI), Factor de Impacto 5 años (FI5), Inmediatez, Eigenfactor Score (ES), Influencia del Artículo (AIS), ScimagoJournal Rank(SJR), citas/documentos en 2 años (FIScopus), índice H, Impacto por Publicación (IPP) e Impacto Normalizado por Artículo (SNIP). El número total de revistas coincidentes en ambas bases de datos fue de 10.700, de las que se seleccionaron para el análisis dela correlación 9.657 que contenían todos los indicadores. Se aplicó el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman mostrando en algunos indicadores valores muy altos, tanto de manera global como en las áreas de ciencias y ciencias sociales, evidenciando validez convergente, lo que plantea si son necesarios distintos indicadores cuando realmente miden lo mismo. Solo el índice H presentólos valores más bajos,ofreciendo información complementaria al resto de indicadores.

show abstract

“…Bird 2008). Given the vast volume of published scientific work and finite work time, it is impossible for scientists to read and independently evaluate every publication even in their field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neophilia ranking of scientific journals

Packalén

Bhattacharya

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper (citations)—these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical papers dating back to 1946. In addition, we compare our neophilia ranking to citation-based (impact factor) rankings; this comparison shows that the two ranking approaches are distinct. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue novel science, scientists underinvest in innovative work because of a coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the coordination problem by increasing scientists' incentives to pursue innovative work.

show abstract

Journal impact factors,h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology

Cited by 32 publications

References 17 publications

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Correlación entre indicadores bibliométricos en revistas de Web of Science y Scopus

Neophilia ranking of scientific journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About