Assessing Publication Impact Through Citation Data (original) (raw)
Related papers
2017
The impact factor was introduced to measure the quality of journals. Various impact measures exist from multiple bibliographic databases. In this research, we aim to provide a broader understanding of the relationship between scholarly impact and other characteristics of academic journals. Data used for this research were collected from Ulrich's Periodicals Directory (Ulrichs), Cabell's (Cabells), and SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) from 1999 to 2015. A master journal dataset was consolidated via Journal Title and ISSN. We adopted a two-step analysis process to study the quantitative relationships between scholarly impact and other journal characteristics. Firstly, we conducted a correlation analysis over the data attributes, with results indicating that there are no correlations between any of the identified journal characteristics. Secondly, we examined the quantitative relationship between scholarly impact and other characteristics using quartile analysis. The result...
Distinguishing citation quality for journal impact assessment
Communications of the ACM, 2009
Introduction The research community has long and often been fervently keen on debating the topic of journal impact. Well, just what is the impact of a journal? Today, the Science Citation Index (SCI) recognizes over 7,000 journals. The sheer number of available journals renders it pivotal for researchers to accurately gauge a journal's impact when submitting their papers, as it has become commonplace that researchers regard publishing their work in established journals to have significant influence on peer recognition. For journals in Management Information System (MIS), such research studies have continuously been published since the 1990s. Nine of them have been summarized by Carol Saunders, whereby seven were based on respondent perceptions by surveying experts, and two were based on the citation quantity to indicate the journal impact. It is generally accepted that citation analysis is purported to be a more objective method than the expert survey. The main reason is citatio...
Scientometrics, 2018
We examine the relationships between four citation metrics (impact factor, the numerator of the impact factor, article influence score, and eigenfactor) and the library journal selection decisions made by Manhattan College faculty as part of a large-scale serials review. Our results show that journal selection status (selected or not) is only weakly or moderately related to citation impact. Faculty choosing journals for their universities do consider the citation data provided to them, although they place less emphasis on citation impact than do faculty responding to journal ranking surveys. While previous research suggests that subjective journal ratings are more closely related to size-independent metrics (those that represent the average impact of an article rather than the impact of the journal as a whole) and weighted metrics (those that give more credit for citations in high-impact journals), our current results provide no support for the first assertion and only limited support for the second.
Tracking a Researcher's Publications Impact: The Journal Impact Factor and Beyond
Nowadays in order to evaluate productivity of research activities along with expert opinions scientometric indices are being increasingly used. Scientometrics, the quantitative measurement and analysis of science, has been used to investigate the impact of research publications and other research outputs. Research outputs such as journal articles and other research publications are a tangible result of research works of the researchers/ and or academicians. And all these research outputs are increasingly made available electronically to the websites in many versions by publishing of databases. There are now an endless variety of metrics that are available for analyzing the impact of scholarly research outputs including impact of an individual researcher, publications and his/her institution.
Citation-Based Indices of Scholarly Impact: Databases and Norms
2013
Scholarly impact has long been an intriguing research topic (Nosek et al., 2010; Sternberg, 2003) as well as a crucial factor in making consequential decisions (e.g., hiring, tenure, promotion, research support, professional honors). As decision makers ramp up their reliance on objective measures (Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, 2010), quantifying scholarly impact effectively has never been more important. Conventional measures such as the number of articles published remain popular, but modern citation-based indices offer many advantages (Ruscio, Seaman, D’Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, 2012). We discuss two attractive indices, show that PsycINFO or Web of Science searches yield comparable results, and provide norms for psychological scientists on these indices.
The journal relative impact: an indicator for journal assessment
Scientometrics, 2011
This paper presents the journal relative impact (JRI), an indicator for scientific evaluation of journals. The JRI considers in its calculation the different culture of citations presented by the Web of Science subject categories. The JRI is calculated considering a variable citation window. This citation window is defined taking into account the time required by each subject category for the maturation of citations. The type of document considered in each subject category depends on its outputs in relation to the citations. The scientific performance of each journal in relation to each subject category that it belongs to is considered allowing the comparison of the scientific performance of journals from different fields. The results obtained show that the JRI can be used for the assessment of the scientific performance of a given journal and that the SJR and SNIP should be used to complement the information provided by the JRI. The JRI presents good features as stability over time and predictability.