Weak Relations among the Impact Factors, Number of Citations, References and Authors

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. K. Ravichandra Rao
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

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.

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 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.

Trend Analyses of Major Contributions in The Counseling Psychologist Cited from 1986 to 1996

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Y. Flores ◽  
S. Craig Rooney ◽  
P. Paul Heppner ◽  
LaVonne Douglas Browne ◽  
Mei-Fen Wei
Keyword(s):  
Half Life ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Official Publication ◽  
Professional Issues ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
The Past ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

This study commemorates the 30th anniversary of The Counseling Psychologist (TCP), the official publication of Division 17 since 1969. The investigation analyzes trends in the professional citations of the Major Contribution articles from the inception of TCP in 1969 through 1995. Results indicate (a) the impact factors and citation half-life statistics for Major Contribution articles for the years 1986 to 1996, (b) that citations of Major Contributions have increased over the past 11 years, (c) that Major Contribution articles are cited across a diverse range of disciplines, (d) that the number of Major Contribution articles in an issue is negatively related to the average number of citations for an issue, (e) the top 10 most frequently cited Major Contribution articles, (f) the percentages of Major Contributions published by men and women, and (g) emerging topic areas from citations of Major Contributions published from 1991 to 1995. Implications of the results are discussed with regard to professional issues, TCP, and future research.

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 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 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.

Correlation of Altmetric Attention Scores with Citations in Major Pharmacy Journals (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave L Dixon ◽  
William L Baker
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND The impact and quality of a faculty members publications is a key factor in promotion and tenure decisions and career advancement. Traditional measures, including citation counts and journal impact factor, have notable limitations. Since 2010, alternative metrics have been proposed as another means of assessing the impact and quality of scholarly work. The Altmetric Attention Score is an objective score frequently used to determine the immediate reach of a published work across the web, including news outlets, blogs, social media, and more. Several studies evaluating the correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations have found mixed results and may be discipline-specific. OBJECTIVE To determine the correlation between higher Altmetric Attention Scores and citation count for journal articles published in major pharmacy journals. METHODS This cross-sectional study evaluated articles from major pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to the Altmetric Attention Score. Sources of attention that determined the Altmetric Attention Score were obtained, as well each articles open access status, article type, study design, and topic. Correlation between journal characteristics, including the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations, was assessed using the Spearman’s correlation test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the Altmetric Attention Scores between journals. RESULTS Six major pharmacy journals were identified. A total of 1,376 articles were published in 2017 and 137 of these represented the top 10% with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. The median Altmetric Attention Score was 19 (IQR 15-28). Twitter and Mendeley were the most common sources of attention. Over half (56.2%) of the articles were original investigations and 49.8% were either cross-sectional, qualitative, or cohort studies. No significant correlation was found between the Altmetric Attention Score and citation count (rs=0.07, P = 0.485). Mendeley was the only attention source that correlated with the number of citations (rs=0.486, P<0.001). The median Altmetric Attention Score varied widely between each journal (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The overall median Altmetric Attention score of 19 suggests articles published in major pharmacy journals are near the top 5% of all scientific output. However, we found no correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals in the year 2017.

scholarly journals Exploring Factors Influencing Scenarios Evolution of Waste NIMBY Crisis: Analysis of Typical Cases in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2006
Author(s):  
Ling He ◽  
Qing Yang ◽  
Xingxing Liu ◽  
Lingmei Fu ◽  
Jinmei Wang
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Dynamic Bayesian Network ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Social Stability ◽  
Ground Theory ◽  
Evolution Path ◽  
Dynamic Scenario ◽  
The Impact

As the impact factors of the waste Not-In-My-Back Yard (NIMBY) crisis are complex, and the scenario evolution path of it is diverse. Once the crisis is not handled properly, it will bring adverse effects on the construction of waste NIMBY facilities, economic development and social stability. Consequently, based on ground theory, this paper takes the waste NIMBY crisis in China from 2006 to 2019 as typical cases, through coding analysis, scenario evolution factors of waste NIMBY crisis are established. Furtherly, three key scenarios were obtained, namely, external situation (E), situation state (S), emergency management (M), what is more, scenario evolution law of waste NIMBY crisis is revealed. Then, the dynamic Bayesian network theory is used to construct the dynamic scenario evolution network of waste NIMBY crisis. Finally, based on the above models, Xiantao waste NIMBY crisis is taken as a case study, and the dynamic process of scenario evolution network is visually displayed by using Netica. The simulation results show that the scenario evolution network of Xiantao waste NIMBY crisis is basically consistent with the actual incident development process, which confirms the effectiveness and feasibility of the model.

scholarly journals Do Agricultural Machinery Services Facilitate Land Transfer? Evidence from Rice Farmers in Sichuan Province, China

Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 466
Author(s):  
Xi Yu ◽  
Xiyang Yin ◽  
Yuying Liu ◽  
Dongmei Li
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Sichuan Province ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Farm Labor ◽  
Agricultural Machinery ◽  
Rice Farmers ◽  
Land Transfer ◽  
Land Rental ◽  
Rental Markets ◽  
The Impact

Agricultural machinery services play an increasingly important role in the land transfer market, especially in developing countries. Prior studies have explored the impact factors of machinery use on agricultural production and land transfer, respectively. However, little research has focused on the relationship between the adoption of agricultural machinery services and the land transfer of rice farmers. To bridge this gap, this study investigated the correlation between machinery services and land transfer, using unique survey data of 810 rice farmers collected from Sichuan province in China. Additionally, this study further explored the impact mechanism on land transfer of rural households with IV-Probit and IV-Tobit models. The empirical results show the following: (i) Agricultural machinery services have a significantly positive and robust effect on both the incidence and area of rice farmers’ land transfer-in, while the impact degree is different. Specifically, with other conditions remaining unchanged, and with a 1% increase in the proportion of machinery services, the average probability of land transfer-in of rice farmers increased by 2.4%, and the area of land transfer-in increased by 13.4 mu, on average. (ii) For control variables, head education, agricultural certificates and whether the majority of land, are in a flat area have positive impacts on land transfer-in behavior. Yet, age and off-farm labor have a negative impact on land transfer-in area. Moreover, our findings highlight the importance of agricultural machinery services in stimulating the development of rural land rental markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document