Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact

Moed, Henk F.; Leeuwen, Thed N. van; Reedijk, Jan

doi:10.1007/bf02459613

Cited by 82 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This intra-disciplinary ranking with little difference between different JIFs is in accordance with results found by Garfield (1998b), Moed et al (1999) and Stegmann (1999). As the four models are so closely related we choose to describe only one and in cases where the models differ we describe the differences.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 67%

Journal self-citations—Analysing the JIF mechanism

Frandsen

2007

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the mechanism of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF).Although created as a journal selection tool the indicator is probably the central quantitative indicator for measuring journal quality. The focus is journal self-citations as the treatment of these in analyses and evaluations is highly disputed. The role of self-citations (both self-citing rate and self-cited rate) is investigated on a larger scale in this analysis in order to achieve statistical reliable material that can further qualify that discussion. Some of the hypotheses concerning journal self-citations are supported by the results and some are not.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 67%

Journal self-citations—Analysing the JIF mechanism

Frandsen

2007

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pluses and minuses of the impact factor, as viewed by various bibliometricians, are widely discussed in the literature (Leydesdorff 2008;Moed 2002;Moed 2005a;Moed and van Leeuwen 1995;Moed et al 1999;Moed et al 2004;van Leeuwen et al 1999;van Leeuwen and Moed 2002;van Leeuwen and Moed 2005;Zitt and Small 2008).…”

Section: Journal Impact Factor: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators

Pendlebury

2009

Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp.

184

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the nature and use of the journal impact factor and other common bibliometric measures for assessing research in the sciences and social sciences based on data compiled by Thomson Reuters. Journal impact factors are frequently misused to assess the influence of individual papers and authors, but such uses were never intended. Thomson Reuters also employs other measures of journal influence, which are contrasted with the impact factor. Finally, the author comments on the proper use of citation data in general, often as a supplement to peer review. This review may help government policymakers, university administrators, and individual researchers become better acquainted with the potential benefits and limitations of bibliometrics in the evaluation of research.

show abstract

“…In the search for quantitative, impartial methods to evaluate research impact, bibliometrics has become increasingly utilized in spite of reservations with respect to limitations with the available methodologies [1][2][3]. Bibliometrics, and the related field Scientometrics, involves the analysis of scientific publication patterns using citations to documents as a proxy for impact, and co-authorship on documents as an indication of scientific collaboration and network activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accountability and High Impact Journals in the Health Sciences

Buchan¹

2017

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:As the requirement for accountability and demonstration of the impact of public and privately funded research increases, the practice of attributing impact to research published in high impact journals is on the rise. To investigate the relevance of existing bibliometrics laws to current health research practices, 57 research areas in Web of Science (WoS) representing the major and minor disciplines were studied. In the majority of cases, Garfield's Law of Concentration is followed with 20% of journals in each area contributing 80% of the total citations. The major multidisciplinary journals formed an anomalous grouping with low overall citation rates, although those documents cited were at a level well above the norm. In all research areas studied, team science is the prevailing norm, single author publications were rarely present in the data sets. For researchers looking to maximize the uptake and recognition of their work, publication in the top journals in the appropriate research area would be the most effective strategy, which does not in many cases include the major multidisciplinary journals.

show abstract

Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact

Cited by 82 publications

References 14 publications

Journal self-citations—Analysing the JIF mechanism

Journal self-citations—Analysing the JIF mechanism

The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators

Accountability and High Impact Journals in the Health Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About