citation window
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

9
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

3
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110065
Author(s):  
Frandsen Tove Faber ◽  
Mette Brandt Eriksen ◽  
David Mortan Grøne Hammer

Ageing or obsolescence describes the process of declining use of a particular publication over time and can affect the results of a citation analyses as the length of citation window can change rankings. Obsolescence may not only vary across fields but also across subfields or sub-disciplines. The aim of this study is to determine the sub-disciplinary differences of obsolescence on a larger scale allowing for differences over time as well. The study presents the results of an analysis of 82,759 references across 53 healthcare and health policy topics. The references in this study are extracted from systematic reviews published from 2012 to 2016. The analyses of obsolescence include median citation age and mean citation age. This study finds that the median citation age and the mean citation age differ considerably across groups. For the latter indicator, an analysis of the confidence intervals confirms these differences. Using the subfield categorisation from Cochrane review groups, we found larger differences across subfields than in the citing half-lives published by Journal Citation Reports. Obsolescence is important to consider when setting the length of the citation windows. This study emphasises the vast differences across health sciences subfields. The length of the citation period is thus highly important for the results of a bibliometric evaluation or study covering fields with very varying obsolescence rates.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumit Kumar Banshal ◽  
Vivek Kumar Singh ◽  
Pranab Kumar Muhuri

PurposeThe main purpose of this study is to explore and validate the question “whether altmetric mentions can predict citations to scholarly articles”. The paper attempts to explore the nature and degree of correlation between altmetrics (from ResearchGate and three social media platforms) and citations.Design/methodology/approachA large size data sample of scholarly articles published from India for the year 2016 is obtained from the Web of Science database and the corresponding altmetric data are obtained from ResearchGate and three social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook and blog through Altmetric.com aggregator). Correlations are computed between early altmetric mentions and later citation counts, for data grouped in different disciplinary groups.FindingsResults show that the correlation between altmetric mentions and citation counts are positive, but weak. Correlations are relatively higher in the case of data from ResearchGate as compared to the data from the three social media platforms. Further, significant disciplinary differences are observed in the degree of correlations between altmetrics and citations.Research limitations/implicationsThe results support the idea that altmetrics do not necessarily reflect the same kind of impact as citations. However, articles that get higher altmetric attention early may actually have a slight citation advantage. Further, altmetrics from academic social networks like ResearchGate are more correlated with citations, as compared to social media platforms.Originality/valueThe paper has novelty in two respects. First, it takes altmetric data for a window of about 1–1.5 years after the article publication and citation counts for a longer citation window of about 3–4 years after the publication of article. Second, it is one of the first studies to analyze data from the ResearchGate platform, a popular academic social network, to understand the type and degree of correlations.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0364


Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Jian Zhou ◽  
Lin Feng ◽  
Ning Cai ◽  
Jie Yang

The variation of the journal impact factor is affected by many statistical and sociological factors such as the size of citation window and subject difference. In this work, we develop an impact factor dynamics model based on the parallel system, which can be used to analyze the correlation between the impact factor and certain elements. The parallel model aims to simulate the submission and citation behaviors of the papers in journals belonging to a similar subject, in a distributed manner. We perform Monte Carlo simulations to show how the model parameters influence the impact factor dynamics. Through extensive simulations, we reveal the important role that certain statistics elements and behaviors play to affect impact factors. The experimental results and analysis on actual data demonstrate that the value of the JIF is comprehensively influenced by the average review time, average number of references, and aging distribution of citation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirit Kaldas ◽  
Stephen Michael ◽  
Jessica Hanna ◽  
George M Yousef

The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today’s research world. An important question is whether or not this is still a constructive method. For a specific journal, the IF is the number of citations for publications over the previous 2 years divided by the number of total citable publications in these years (the citation window). Although this simplicity works to an advantage of this method, complications arise when answers to questions such as ‘What is included in the citation window’ or ‘What makes a good journal impact factor’ contain ambiguity. In this review, we discuss whether or not the IF should still be considered the gold standard of scholarly assessment in view of the many recent changes and the emergence of new publication models. We will outline its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the IF include promoting the author meanwhile giving the readers a visualization of the magnitude of review. On the other hand, its disadvantages include reflecting the journal’s quality more than the author’s work, the fact that it cannot be compared across different research disciplines, and the struggles it faces in the world of open access. Recently, alternatives to the IF have been emerging, such as the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, the Source Normalized Impact per Paper and the Eigenfactor Score, among others. However, all alternatives proposed thus far are associated with their own limitations as well. In conclusion, although IF contains its cons, until there are better proposed alternative methods, IF remains one of the most effective methods for assessing scholarly activity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lutz Bornmann ◽  
Alexander Tekles
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Yue ◽  
Liying Yang ◽  
Per Ahlgren ◽  
Jielan Ding ◽  
Shuangqing Shi ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose This study aims to compare the characteristics of citation disciplinary structure between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries. Design/Methodology/Approach In this contribution, which uses about 1 million Web of Science publications and two publications years (1993 and 2013), we compare the G7 countries and the BRICS countries with regard to this type of structure. For the publication year 2013, cosine similarity values regarding the citation disciplinary structures of these countries (and of nine other countries) were used as input to cluster analysis. We also obtained cosine similarity values for a given country and its citation disciplinary structures across the two publication years. Moreover, for the publication year 2013, the within-country Jeffreys-Matusita distance between publication and citation disciplinary structure was measured. Research limitations First, the citation disciplinary structures of countries depend on multiple and complex factors. It is therefore difficult to completely explain the formation and change of the citation disciplinary structure of a country. This study suggests some possible causes, whereas detailed explanations might be given by future research. Second, the length of the citation window used in this study is three years. However, scientific disciplines differ in their citation practices. Comparison between citations across disciplines using the same citation window length may affect the citation discipline structure results for some countries. Practical limitations First, the results of this study are based on the WoS database. However, in this database some fields are covered to a greater extent than others, which may affect the results for the citation discipline structure for some studied countries. In future research, we might repeat this study using another database (like Scopus) and, in that case, we would like to make comparisons between the two outcomes. Second, the use of a constant journal set yielded that a large share of the journals covered by WoS year 2013 is ignored in the study. Thus, disciplinary structure is studied based on a quite restricted set of publications. The three mentioned limitations should be kept in mind when the results of this study are interpreted. Originality/value Disciplinary structure on country level is a highlighted topic for the S&T policy makers, especially for those come from developing countries. This study observes the disciplinary structure in the view of academic impact, and the result will provide some evidence to make decision for the discipline strategy and funding allocation. Besides, Jeffreys-Matusita distance is introduced to measure the similarity of citation disciplinary structure and publication disciplinary structure. By applying this measure, some new observations were drawn, for example, “Based on the comparison of publication disciplinary structure and citation disciplinary structure, the paper finds most BRICS counties have less impact with more publications”. Findings The outcome of the cluster analysis indicates that the G7 countries and BRICS countries are quite heterogeneous regarding their citation disciplinary structure. For a majority of the G7 countries, the citation disciplinary structure tend to be more stable compared to BRICS countries with regard to the years 1993 and 2013. Most G7 countries, with United States as an exception, turned out to have lower values on the Jeffreys-Matusita distance than BRICS countries, indicating a higher degree of heterogeneity between the publication and the citation disciplinary structure for the latter countries. In other words, BRICS countries still receive much less citations in most disciplines than their publication output would suggest. G7 countries can still expect more citations than is to be expected based on their publication output, thereby generating relatively more impact than BRICS countries.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Lazarev ◽  
Inna Yurik ◽  
Natalya Dydik

When selecting world scientific serials for certain disciplines in the natural and technical sciences, the indicators of selected publications citation in specialized journals and the specialized journals citation in the selected publications are used. The study was conducted within the topics “Energy security and energy conservation, energy efficient technologies and engineering». Total citation in individual specialized journals was calculated along with the “discipline impact factor” - an indicator similar to the impact factor having in its numerator the value of citation of journals in the selected specialized journals rather than the whole range of journals being indexed by JournalCitationReports®. The serials were also selected by their total citation of the selected specialized journals. The indicator similar to the “discipline impact factor” is calculated as the fraction of the number of the serials’ links to the specialized journals publications in “the citation window” made by the serials being assessed on the specialized journals publication within the “publication window” and the citing publications in “the citation window”. In all the cases, the citation window equals one year, and the publication window equals “5 + 1” years, i.e. five years prior to the year when the links are being recorded.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Abramo ◽  
Tindaro Cicero ◽  
Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document