Results 1 -
9 of
9
2010), Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices
- Scientometrics
"... Abstract 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 impac ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 8 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract 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.
Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from . . .
- JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
, 2011
"... ..."
Bibliometric rankings of journals based on Impact Factors: An axiomatic approach
, 2010
"... This paper proposes an axiomatic analysis of Impact Factors when used as tools for ranking scientific journals. This work draws on the similarities between the problem of comparing distribution of citations among papers and that of comparing probability distributions on consequences as commonly done ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper proposes an axiomatic analysis of Impact Factors when used as tools for ranking scientific journals. This work draws on the similarities between the problem of comparing distribution of citations among papers and that of comparing probability distributions on consequences as commonly done in decision theory. Our analysis singles out a number of characteristic properties of the ranking based on Impact Factors. It also suggests alternative ways of using distributions of citations to rank order journals. We illustrate our findings using citation data for a small sample of economic journals.
Journal impact factor, eigenfactor, journal influence and article influence
, 2012
"... Tinbergen Institute has two locations: ..."
(Show Context)
Measuring the influence of a journal using impact and diffusion factors
"... ABSTRACT ..."
(Show Context)
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch New ZealandArticle Influence Score = 5YIF divided by 2
, 2010
"... This paper examines the novelty and usefulness of two new journal performance metrics, namely the Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score, using ISI data for 2009 for the 200 most highly cited journals in each of the sciences and social sciences, and compares them with existing ISI metrics, na ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
This paper examines the novelty and usefulness of two new journal performance metrics, namely the Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score, using ISI data for 2009 for the 200 most highly cited journals in each of the sciences and social sciences, and compares them with existing ISI metrics, namely Total Citations and the 5-year Impact Factor (5YIF) of a journal. It is shown that the sciences and social sciences are different in terms of the strength of the relationship of journal performance metrics, although the actual relationships are very similar.
COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ARTICLE
, 2012
"... doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00011 Network-based statistics for a community driven transparent publication process ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00011 Network-based statistics for a community driven transparent publication process
1 Coercive Journal Self Citations, Impact Factor, Journal Influence and Article Influence
, 2013
"... This paper examines the issue of coercive journal self citations and the practical usefulness of two recent journal performance metrics, namely the Eigenfactor score, which may be interpreted as measuring “Journal Influence”, and the Article Influence score, using the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Scie ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper examines the issue of coercive journal self citations and the practical usefulness of two recent journal performance metrics, namely the Eigenfactor score, which may be interpreted as measuring “Journal Influence”, and the Article Influence score, using the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science (hereafter ISI) data for 2009 for the 200 most highly cited journals in each of the Sciences and Social Sciences. The paper also compares the two new bibliometric measures with two existing ISI metrics, namely Total Citations and the 5-year Impact Factor (5YIF) (including journal self citations) of a journal. It is shown that the Sciences and Social Sciences are different in terms of the strength of the relationship of journal performance metrics, although the actual relationships are very similar. Moreover, the journal influence and article influence journal performance metrics are shown to be closely related empirically to the two existing ISI metrics, and hence add little in practical usefulness to what is already known, except for eliminating the pressure arising from coercive journal self citations. These empirical results are compared with existing results in the bibliometrics literature.
