Search results

1 – 10 of over 13000
Article
Publication date: 29 April 2020

Siluo Yang and Fan Qi

This study aims to compare the impacts of proceedings papers in the fields of social science and humanities (SSH) and science.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare the impacts of proceedings papers in the fields of social science and humanities (SSH) and science.

Design/methodology/approach

This study involved not only citations but also altmetric indexes to compare the impacts of proceedings papers among multiple disciplines with 1,779,166 records from Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) in the Web of Science (WoS) in the period of 2013–2017. The mean value, concentration ratio, Lorenz curves and correlation analysis are utilized into the comparative analysis.

Findings

(1) Proceedings papers in science fields had higher scholarly impacts than those in SSH fields. (2) As for societal impact, clinical, pre-clinical and health still ranked first, whereas physical science and engineering and technologies were transcended by SSH fields, which is different from the scholarly impact of proceedings papers. (3) As for proceedings papers, citations and altmetric indexes have weak or moderate correlations in all six fields, indicating that altmetrics can be supplemented when assessing proceedings papers.

Originality/value

This study is expected to enhance the understanding of proceedings papers and to promote accuracy of evaluation for them by exhibiting the multidisciplinary differences of their scholarly and societal impacts.

Details

Library Hi Tech, vol. 39 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0737-8831

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 11 January 2008

Nana Turk

This literature review aims to provide a synthesis of available key information about the citation impact of Open Access journals in LIS and science in general. Citation

2573

Abstract

Purpose

This literature review aims to provide a synthesis of available key information about the citation impact of Open Access journals in LIS and science in general. Citation impact is defined as a surrogate measure of citation counts.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on a literature review, this paper discusses the methodology of the data collections for citation counts. The literature review is structured to address the literature about citation impact of Open Access journals.

Findings

The literature review indicates that there is quite a uniform way about methodology of citation counts and substantial research about motivation for URL citations to LIS articles.

Originality/value

This literature review is a comprehensive study of the main research about citation impact of Open Access journals, focused on LIS journals.

Details

New Library World, vol. 109 no. 1/2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0307-4803

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 8 June 2022

Qingqing Zhou

Citations have been used as a common basis to measure the academic accomplishments of scientific books. However, traditional citation analysis ignored content mining and…

Abstract

Purpose

Citations have been used as a common basis to measure the academic accomplishments of scientific books. However, traditional citation analysis ignored content mining and without consideration of citation equivalence, which may lead to the decline of evaluation reliability. Hence, this paper aims to integrate multi-level citation information to conduct multi-dimensional analysis.

Design/methodology/approach

In this paper, books’ academic impacts were measured by integrating multi-level citation resources, including books’ citation frequencies and citation-related contents. Specifically, firstly, books’ citation frequencies were counted as the frequency-level metric. Secondly, content-level metrics were detected from multi-dimensional citation contents based on finer-grained mining, including topic extraction on the metadata and citation classification on the citation contexts. Finally, differential metric weighting methods were compared with integrate the multi-level metrics and computing books’ academic impacts.

Findings

The experimental results indicate that the integration of multiple citation resources is necessary, as it can significantly improve the comprehensiveness of the evaluation results. Meanwhile, compared with the type differences of books, disciplinary differences need more attention when evaluating the academic impacts of books.

Originality/value

Academic impact assessment of books via integrating multi-level citation information can provide more detailed evaluation information and cover shortcomings of methods based on single citation data. Moreover, the method proposed in this paper is publication independent, which can be used to measure other publications besides books.

Details

The Electronic Library , vol. 40 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0264-0473

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 3 August 2021

Shiji Chen, Yanhui Song, Junping Qiu and Vincent Larivière

This study explores whether interdisciplinary components' citation intensity (ICCI) affects papers' scientific impact. In this study, the term “interdisciplinary…

Abstract

Purpose

This study explores whether interdisciplinary components' citation intensity (ICCI) affects papers' scientific impact. In this study, the term “interdisciplinary components” refers to the disciplines that are different from the discipline to which the target research belongs. The citation intensity is the degree of density or sparseness of the paper citation network for a discipline. Previous studies have shown that the scientific impact of interdisciplinary research is influenced by interdisciplinarity and its properties, namely, variety, balance and disparity. However, the effect of ICCI on scientific impact has not been comprehensively explored.

Design/methodology/approach

This study is based on the entire publication database of the Web of Science for the year 2000, where the authors provide an indicator to measure the ICCI of each publication. A tobit regression model is used to examine the effect of ICCI on scientific impact, controlling for a range of variables associated with the characteristics of the publications studied.

Findings

The results show that ICCI has a positive effect on scientific impact. The authors’ results further point out that ICCI displays a curvilinear inverted U-shape relationship with scientific impact. It means that including more citation-intensive interdisciplinary components can increase the scientific impact of interdisciplinary research. However, excessive use of citation-intensive interdisciplinary components may reduce the scientific impact of interdisciplinary research.

Originality/value

This study shows that, in addition to interdisciplinarity, the scientific impact of interdisciplinary research is also affected by the citation characteristics of interdisciplinary components, namely ICCI.

Article
Publication date: 21 September 2021

Jingda Ding, Ruixia Xie, Chao Liu and Yiqing Yuan

This study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.

Abstract

Purpose

This study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.

Design/methodology/approach

Taking SSCI journals in library and information science (LIS) as the research object, the authors first explore the skewness degree of the citation distribution of journal articles. Then, we define the paper citation ratio as the weight of impact factor to modify the journal impact factor for the evaluation of papers, namely the weighted impact factor. The authors further explore the feasibility of the weighted impact factor in evaluating papers.

Findings

The research results show that different types of skewness exist in the citation distribution of journal papers. Particularly, 94% of journal paper citations are highly skewed, while the rest are moderately skewed. The weighted impact factor has a closer correlation with the citation frequency of papers than the journal impact factor. It resolves the issue that the journal impact factor tends to exaggerate the influence of low-cited papers in journals with high impact factors or weaken the influence of high-cited papers in journals with low impact factors.

Originality/value

The weighted impact factor is constructed based on the skewness of the citation distribution of journal articles. It provides a new method to distinguish the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field, then avoids the situation that papers published in the same journal having the same academic impact.

Details

Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 74 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2050-3806

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 December 2004

A.J. Nederhof and M.S. Visser

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the…

Abstract

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world‐wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five‐year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 60 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 24 May 2021

Zahra Batooli, Azam Mohamadloo and Somayyeh Nadi-Ravandi

The study aimed to measure scientific and social impacts of Iranian researchers' “Top Papers” in clinical medicine using citation and altmetric indicators.

Abstract

Purpose

The study aimed to measure scientific and social impacts of Iranian researchers' “Top Papers” in clinical medicine using citation and altmetric indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

In this applied descriptive-analytical study, it used scientometric analysis. A total of 166 “Top Papers” of Iranian researchers in clinical medicine category of Web of Science (WoS) database including “Highly Cited Papers” and “Hot Papers” published between 2009 and 2019 were used. Overall, 29 indicators and their data were extracted from WoS, Scopus, ResearchGate (RG) and PlumX in March 2020.

Findings

The results showed that there exists a positive correlation between the number of citations in WoS, Scopus, RG, PubMed and Crossref. In addition, it was found that there existed a positive correlation between the received citations by articles and altmetric indicators. According to the results, there is a strong correlation between RG Research Interest and citation impact. The correlation analysis on the Plum Analytics categories including “Usage”, “Capture”, “Mention”, “Social Media” and “Citation” showed the correlations between five dimensions of impact were positive and significant. The results have led the authors to think more about new metrics that can response to new developments in the new information areas.

Research limitations/implications

There are limitations to access altmetric.com in Iran and cannot be used easily. On the other hand, because of considering 24 indicators, authors had to investigate only a sample of 166 top papers from Iranian researchers to present the detailed results. About nature of altmetric indicators, although they reflect the nonacademic impact of articles alongside bibliographic indicators, they still cannot be a complete representative of the influence of their owners.

Practical implications

This study can indicate a practical application appropriate for the future study. It would be valuable to further examine how social academic platforms construct images of impact of research and how this impacts the social impact of the university as a mission. This study suggests that social media attention to academic research can be much greater than what is shown in traditional indicators such as citation.

Originality/value

This study examines 29 indicators from four platforms including RG, WoS, Scopus and PlumX, simultaneously and measures the relationship among them.

Details

Library Hi Tech, vol. 39 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0737-8831

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 12 June 2017

Sara M. González-Betancor and Pablo Dorta-González

The two most used citation impact indicators in the assessment of scientific journals are, nowadays, the impact factor and the h-index. However, both indicators are not…

Abstract

Purpose

The two most used citation impact indicators in the assessment of scientific journals are, nowadays, the impact factor and the h-index. However, both indicators are not field normalized (vary heavily depending on the scientific category). Furthermore, the impact factor is not robust to the presence of articles with a large number of citations, while the h-index depends on the journal size. These limitations are very important when comparing journals of different sizes and categories. The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative citation impact indicator, based on the percentage of highly cited articles in the journal.

Design/methodology/approach

This alternative indicator is empirically compared with the impact factor and the h-index, considering different time windows and citation percentiles (levels of citation for considering an article as highly cited compared to others in the same year and category). The authors use four journal categories (Clarivate Analytics Web of Science) which are quite different according to the publication profiles and citation levels (Information Science & Library Science, Operations Research & Management Science, Ophthalmology, and Physics Condensed Matter).

Findings

After analyzing 20 different indicators, depending on the citation percentile and the time window in which citations are counted, the indicator that seems to best homogenize the categories is the one that considers a time window of two years and a citation level of 10 percent.

Originality/value

The percentage of highly cited articles in a journal is field normalized (comparable between scientific categories), independent of the journal size and also robust to the presence of articles with a high number of citations.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 41 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 11 April 2016

Chia-Lin Chang and Michael McAleer

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…

Abstract

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.

Details

Managerial Finance, vol. 42 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0307-4358

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 15 July 2014

Stefanie Haustein and Vincent Larivière

The purpose of this paper is to show that the journal impact factor (IF) is not able to reflect the full impact of scholarly journals and provides an overview of…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show that the journal impact factor (IF) is not able to reflect the full impact of scholarly journals and provides an overview of alternative and complementary methods in journal evaluation.

Design/methodology/approach

Aslib Proceedings (AP) is exemplarily analyzed with a set of indicators from five dimensions of journal evaluation, i.e. journal output, content, perception and usage, citations and management to accurately reflect its various strengths and weaknesses beyond the IF.

Findings

AP has become more international in terms of authors and more diverse regarding its topics. Citation impact is generally low and, with the exception of a special issue on blogs, remains world average. However, an evaluation of downloads and Mendeley readers reveals that the journal is an important source of information for professionals and students and certain topics are frequently read but not cited.

Research limitations/implications

The study is limited to one journal.

Practical implications

An overview of various indicators and methods is provided that can be applied in the quantitative evaluation of scholarly journals (and also to articles, authors and institutions).

Originality/value

After a publication history of more than 60 years, this analysis takes stock of AP, highlighting strengths and weaknesses and developments over time. The case study provides an example and overview of the possibilities of multidimensional journal evaluation.

Details

Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 66 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2050-3806

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 13000