The relationships among the citation measures and the factors influence on them

Midorikawa, Nobuyuki; Ogawa, Haruyuki; Saito, Kenichiro; Kaneko, Masatsugu; Itsumura, Hiroshi

doi:10.3233/isu-1984-4606

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies have examined correlations between journal citation indices (Bollen et al 2009;Davis 2008;Falagas et al 2008;Franceschet 2010;Gordon 1982;Leydesdorff 2009;Midorikawa et al 1984;Rousseau 2009;Smart and Elton 1982;van Leeuwen and Moed 2005;Yue et al 2004), most of which have found at least moderate correlations. However, many of these studies examined small samples of journals (N \ 200) (Davis 2008;Falagas et al 2008;Gordon 1982;Rousseau 2009;Smart and Elton 1982) or analysed data now over a decade old (van Leeuwen and Moed 2005; Yue et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the degree of correlation among journal citation indices that reflect the average number of citations per article, the most recent journal ratings were downloaded from the websites publishing four journal citation indices: the Institute of Scientific Information's journal impact factor index, Eigenfactor's article influence index, SCImago's journal rank index and Scopus' trend line index. Correlations were determined for each pair of indices, using ratings from all journals that could be identified as having been rated on both indices. Correlations between the six possible pairings of the four indices were tested with Spearman's rho. Within each of the six possible pairings, the prevalence of identifiable errors was examined in a random selection of 10 journals and among the 10 most discordantly ranked journals on the two indices. The number of journals that could be matched within each pair of indices ranged from 1,857 to 6,508. Paired ratings for all journals showed strong to very strong correlations, with Spearman's rho values ranging from 0.61 to 0.89, all p \ 0.001. Identifiable errors were more common among scores for journals that had very discordant ranks on a pair of indices. These four journal citation indices were significantly correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity (i.e. they reflect the same underlying construct of average citability per article in a journal). Discordance in the ranking of a journal on two indices was in some cases due to an error in one index.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous factors contribute to the number of citations received by a paper (Tahamtan et al, 2016). In addition, previous studies related to citation‐based indicators only focused on the correlation between two indicators (Chang et al, 2011; Midorikawa et al, 1984; Okagbue & Teixeira da Silva, 2020; Smart & Elton, 1982; Yue et al, 2004). The relationships among the II, JIF, and 5‐year IF is neglected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Immediate Impact Disciplines and Journals by Combining Three Citation‐Based Indicators

Chang

2022

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies immediate impact disciplines and journals by using a new indicator, which combines the journal impact factor (JIF), five‐year impact factor (5‐year IF), and immediacy index (II). Although the numbers of immediate impact journals in both the natural sciences (NS) and social sciences (SS) have increased, NS disciplines have a higher average level of immediate impact than SS disciplines. Among 12,272 NS and SS journals indexed by the 2020 version of Journal Citation Reports, most (62.7%) exhibited the highest value of journal impact in 5‐year IF and lowest value in II, followed by journals with a JIF value higher than that of 5‐year IF (34.3%). Although only 113 journals (0.9%), including SS journals, had the highest value in II and the lowest value in 5‐year IF, the finding rejects the stereotype regarding the nonimmediate impact of SS journals.

show abstract

Quantitative studies of science a current bibliography

Schubert¹

1988

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationships among the citation measures and the factors influence on them

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

Identifying Immediate Impact Disciplines and Journals by Combining Three Citation‐Based Indicators

Quantitative studies of science a current bibliography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About