scholarly journals Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taşkın ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOne of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two lists of questionable journals (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

scholarly journals Quality weighted citations versus total citations in the sciences and social sciences, with an application to finance and accounting

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 324-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Lin Chang ◽  
Michael McAleer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Additional Measure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Article Influence

Purpose – Both journal self-citations and exchanged citations have the effect of increasing a journal’s impact factor, which may be deceptive. The purpose of this paper is to analyse academic journal quality and research impact using quality-weighted citations vs total citations, based on the widely used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality-weighted citations. Design/methodology/approach – The new index is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the sciences and social sciences, as well as finance and accounting, using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative transformations of citations. Findings – It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to 2-year impact factor (2YIF) and other well-known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well-known RAMs for both the sciences and social sciences, and finance and accounting. Practical implications – Journals can, and do, inflate the number of citations through self-citation practices, which may be coercive. Another method for distorting journal impact is through a set of journals agreeing to cite each other, that is, by exchanging citations. This may be less coercive than self-citations, but is nonetheless unprofessional and distortionary. Social implications – The premise underlying the use of citations data is that higher quality journals generally have a higher number of citations. The impact of citations can be distorted in a number of ways, both consciously and unconsciously. Originality/value – Regardless of whether self-citations arise through collusive practices, the increase in citations will affect both 2YIF and 5-year impact factor (5YIF), though not Eigenfactor and Article Influence. This leads to an ICQ, where a higher ICQ would generally be preferred to lower. Unlike 5YIF, which is increased by journal self-citations and exchanged citations, and Eigenfactor and Article Influence, both of which are affected by quality-weighted exchanged citations, ICQ will be less affected by exchanged citations. In the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, 5YIF and AI are assumed to be affected similarly by exchanged citations.

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis of multi-language veterinary journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-353
Author(s):  
Erwin KRAUSKOPF ◽  
Fernanda GARCIA ◽  
Robert FUNK
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Citation Distribution ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Main Language

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between language and total number of citations found among documents in journals written in English and other languages. We selected all the journals clustered together in the Journal Citation Reports 2014 under the subject category “Veterinary Sciences” and downloaded all the data registered between 1994-2013 by Web of Science for the journals that stated publishing documents in languages other than English. We classified each of these journals by quartile and extracted information regarding their impact factor, language(s) stated, country of origin, total number of documents published, total number of reviews published, percentage of documents published in English and the quartile in which each journal ranked. Of the 48,118 documents published by the 28 journals analyzed, 55.8% were published in English. Interestingly, although most of the journals state being multi-language, most documents published in quartile 1 journals were in English (an average of 99.2%), while the percentage was 93.1% in quartile 2 journals, 62.1% in quartile 3 journals and 27.4% in quartile 4 journals. We also confirmed that citation distribution in these journals was highly skewed. The results of this study suggest that journals should consider adopting English as the main language as this will increase citation counts and the impact factor of the journal.

scholarly journals Top 100 Publications as Measured by Altmetrics in the Field of Central Nervous System Inflammatory Demyelinating Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Jee-Eun Kim ◽  
Yerim Kim ◽  
Kang Min Park ◽  
Dae Young Yoon ◽  
Jong Seok Bae
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Demyelinating Disease ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Clinical Neurology ◽  
Novel Treatments ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Background. Altmetrics analyze the visibility of articles in social media and estimate their impact on the general population. We performed an altmetric analysis of articles on central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease (CIDD) and investigated its correlation with citation analysis. Methods. Articles in the 91 journals comprising the “clinical neurology,” “neuroscience,” and “medicine, general, and internal” Web of Science categories were searched for their relevance to the CIDD topic. The Altmetric Explorer database was used to determine the Altmetric.com Attention Score (AAS) values of the selected articles. The papers with the top 100 AAS values were characterized. Results. Articles most frequently mentioned online were primarily published after 2014 and were published in journals with high impact factors. All articles except one were dealt with the issue of multiple sclerosis. Most were original articles, but editorials were also common. Novel treatments and risk factors are the most frequent topics. The AAS was weakly correlated with journal impact factors; however, no link was found between the AAS and the number of citations. Conclusions. We present the top 100 most frequently mentioned CIDD articles in online media using an altmetric approach. Altmetrics can rapidly offer alternative information on the impact of research based on a broader audience and can complement traditional metrics.

scholarly journals Journals Supporting Terrorism Research: Identification and Investigation into Their Impact on the Social Sciences

2013 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl R. Bullis ◽  
Richard D. Irving
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Literature ◽  
Social Science Journal ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

A citation analysis of two preeminent terrorism journals (Terrorism and Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism) was used to identify 37 additional social science journals of significant importance to terrorism research. Citation data extracted from the Web of Science database was used to investigate the impact of the two journals on the social science journal literature. The impact of the two journals was also analyzed in terms of SSCI subject categories. This study could provide useful information for collection development librarians interested in the social sciences.

Impact factors, citations, and GEOPHYSICS

Geophysics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 3MA-17MA ◽  
Author(s):  
Markku Peltoniemi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Geophysical Prospecting ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
History Of Geophysics ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

This review assesses the contributions and impact that GEOPHYSICS journal has made to both the theory and the applications of exploration geophysics during its publication life span. The contributions are evaluated first on the basis of Journal Citation Reports data, which summarize information available since 1975 about the impact factor of our journal. The impact factor for GEOPHYSICS in 1975–2002 has ranged between 1.461 and 0.591, with an average of 0.924 and with a relative ranking between 16 and 45 for all journals in its category. The journal receiving the highest impact factor for the period 2000–2003 in the “Geochemistry and Geophysics” category is Reviews of Geophysics, with an average impact factor of 7.787 and which ranged between 9.226 and 6.083. A second and important criterion is the frequency with which individual papers published in GEOPHYSICS have been cited elsewhere. This information is available for the entire publication history of GEOPHYSICS and supports the choices made for the early classic papers. These were listed in both the Silver and the Golden Anniversary issues of GEOPHYSICS. In August 2004, the five most-cited papers in GEOPHYSICS published in the time period 1936 to February 2003 are Thomsen (1986) with 423 citations, Constable et al. (1987) with 380 citations, Cagniard (1953) with 354 citations, Sen et al. (1981) with 313 citations, and Stolt (1978) with 307 citations. Fifteen more papers exceed a threshold value of 200 citations. During 2000–2002, GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Applied Geophysics were the four journals with the highest number of citations of papers published in GEOPHYSICS. In the same 2000–2002 period, those journals in which papers published in GEOPHYSICS are cited most are GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Geophysical Research. During 1985, the total number of citations in all journals in the Science Citation Index database to papers published in GEOPHYSICS was 2657. By 2002, this same citation count for GEOPHYSICS had increased to 4784.

scholarly journals The 100 most-cited articles on pectus deformities: A bibliometric analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-232
Author(s):  
Hüseyin Yıldıran ◽  
Güven Sadi Sunam
Keyword(s):  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
The Past ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Web

Background: In this study, we aimed to examine the development of knowledge on pectus deformities through a meticulous analysis of the 100 most-cited articles published on this topic. Methods: Publications related to pectus deformities from January 1975 to April 2020 were scanned using the Web of Science Core Collection database. The publications were ranked from maximum to minimum according to the number of citations and were examined in detail. Results: The 100 articles were published in 27 different journals and received a total of 8,290 citations. The average of the impact factors of journals in 2018 was 4.441. The mean citation density of all articles was 5.1±3.8. In the past years, a surgical technique definition and experience transfer were more frequently used, while complications and technical details were started to be presented in recent years. Conclusion: Our study results suggest that the studies of pectus deformities would continue and, from now on, issues such as complications and technical details would come to the forefront in the articles.

The Impact of Anglicizing Former German-Language Psychology Journals on Authorship and Citation Frequencies

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Krampen ◽  
Thomas Huckert ◽  
Gabriel Schui
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
English Language ◽  
General Trend ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
German Language ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Number Of Authors

Exemplary for other than English-language psychology journals, the impact of recent Anglicization of five former German-language psychology journals on (1) authorship (nationality, i.e., native language, and number of authors, i.e., single or multiple authorships), (2) formal characteristics of the journal (number of articles per volume and length of articles), and (3) number of citations of the articles in other journal articles, the language of the citing publications, and the impact factors (IF) is analyzed. Scientometric data on these variables are gathered for all articles published in the four years before anglicizing and in the four years after anglicizing the same journal. Results reveal rather quick changes: Citations per year since original articles’ publication increase significantly, and the IF of the journals go up markedly. Frequencies of citing in German-language journals decrease, citing in English-language journals increase significantly after the Anglicization of former German-language psychology journals, and there is a general trend of increasing citations in other languages as well. Side effects of anglicizing former German-language psychology journals include the publication of shorter papers, their availability to a more international authorship, and a slight, but significant increase in multiple authorships.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document