Search results

EigenFactor service went through some changes in 2011 before issuing the most current edition (EF‐2010) following the release of the 2010 edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR‐2010) in mid‐2011. Ranking journals by the EigenFactor Score (EFS) and the Article Influence Score (AIS) offered an additional pair of bibliometric indicators to assess the impact of journals in the (sub)disciplinary fields of the sciences and social sciences. In evaluating the clout, importance, and impact of journals it is essential to compare apples to apples, i.e. limiting the assessments to journals belonging to the same (sub)disciplinary areas. This paper aims to examine the quality of the subject categories created for EF‐2010 and of the JCR‐2010 subject categories as implemented within the EigenFactor services.

The paper compares the adequacy of the subject categories in the JCR‐2010 and EF‐2010, examining the assignment of 77 information and library science journals and 50 business/marketing journals to the 64 subject categories used in EF‐2010.

The study finds that EF‐2010 uses a very broad categorisation system of merely 64 subject categories along with the much more specific subject categories originally developed and enhanced for the JCR database of the Institute for Scientific Information (now Thomson‐Reuters). JCR‐2010 has four times as many categories than the former, and would offer a far more realistic comparison of the impact of comparable journals in EF‐2010 if the developers of the EigenFactor database had retained the assignment of the journals to the JCR subject categories. The inconsistency, inaccuracy and incompleteness of the journal classification practice in EF‐2010 creates a highly distorted picture of the standing of journals in their (sub)disciplinary leagues, and makes it very difficult for the users to reproduce the far more refined league lists of journals.

The paper describes the most serious limitations and errors in the classification of journals in the EF‐2010 edition.

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

The traditional, annually issued Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have been enhanced since the 2007 edition by the Eigenfactor Scores (EFS), the Article Influence Scores (AIS) and the five‐year Journal Impact Factor (JIF‐5). This paper aims to focus on the issues.

These scientometric indicators are also available from the Eigenfactor Project web site that uses data from the yearly updates of the JCR.

Although supposedly identical data sources are used for computing the metrics, there are differences in the absolute scores reported, which in turn resulted in significant (more than ten rank positions) changes for several journals in the sample.

The differences in the scores and rank positions by the three new scientometric indicators of 52 journals in the Information and Library Science category were analysed to determine the range of differences and the extent of changes in rank positions.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the journal impact rankings of the open access SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) database and the subscription‐based Journal Citation Reports (JCR).

The paper looks at the SJR database which offers essential scientometric information for more than 17,000 scholarly and professional journals based on data licensed from Elsevier's Scopus database and compares this with the JCR database.

The open access SJR database offers very informative new insights to complement those that have been provided by the JCR for more than three decades by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and its successor, the Thomson (later Thomson‐Reuters) company. Especially valuable are its features of weighting the citations received based on the prestige of the citing journals, the (partial) exclusion of journal self‐citations, and the broader base of source journals. They provide new opportunities to analyse and understand their effects on the ranking of journals.

The paper provides useful information on the open access SJR and JCR databases and their effects on the ranking of journals.

The purpose of this paper is to provide to scientific researchers and academic students some subsidies related to information reliability that may be used during information search and retrieval for academic research based on the author’s experience as a university librarian and interdisciplinary researcher.

The paper is composed of a brief conceptualization of the term information reliability, followed by a practical guide containing three processes for obtaining reliable information: knowledge of bibliometric indicators, evaluation of sources of information and analysis of the content of recovered publications.

Currently, there are few publications about information reliability that target the practical and effective learning of academic researchers and students, based on the experience of librarians who work directly with bibliographic search and training based on scientific literature.

The great demand of questions submitted by academic users on how to obtain reliable information shows the need for a paper like this to clarify them.

This paper shares best practices for search and discovery of information reliability, which are based on experiences that are not commonly addressed in the literature, and presents processes covering the bibliometric indicators, information sources and publication contents.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This sequel to the earlier testing and evaluation of the five‐year Journal Impact Factor (JIF‐5) in the enhanced version of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (released in January and July 2009 for the 2007 and 2008 journal collections, respectively) seeks to assess and compare the impact on the ranking of journals by two other performance indicators.

Both the Eigenfactor Score (EFS) and the Article Influence Score (AIS) use a five‐year target window in the algorithm to quantify the scholarly impact at the overall journal level and at the article level, respectively.

The paper examines how the rank positions of 52 library and information science journals change when the set of journals are ranked by the Eigenfactor metrics in relation to the JIF‐5 indicator.

The principle behind Google's PageRank is where a web page or site got ranked in the search results based not merely on the number of incoming links, but also on the status/prestige of the linking sites based on the PageRank scores of those linking sites. This is a recursively calculated permanent value until the next year's edition.

The purpose of this paper is to present the evolution in notions from bibliometrics to altmetrics and confront them taking into consideration specific criteria. The objective of this paper is to present the evolution of research, regarding the above fields, the study of metrics and indicators used, and the strength and weaknesses resulting from the current literature. Furthermore, the authors present the manipulation techniques for both fields as their main weakness, as well as further key points, analyzing the alternative options of bibliometrics and altmetrics.

First, the authors present the evolution of the literature, concerning the specific field and metrics used, following with a brief description of basic indicators related to the field of bibliometrics (journal impact factor (JIF), eigenfactor, article influence score and h-index) discussing their advantages and disadvantages. In the second part, the authors describe altmetrics and present the differences with bibliometrics.

Both bibliometrics and altmetrics remain weak indicators as fraught with disadvantages with manipulation being the greatest of all. Nevertheless, the combination of the two is proposed in order to export safer conclusions on assessing the impact. Regarding the manipulation there is yet not a clean technique to eliminate manipulation. In specific, regarding bibliometrics, the manipulation of indicators refers only to the human factor intervention. The theoretical implication of this study constitutes of collecting the relevant literature regarding scientific indicators.

We must consider the study of new indicators, which combine metrics and methodologies used in both bibliometrics and altmetrics. The theoretical implication of this study constitutes of collecting the relevant literature regarding scientific indicators. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

The practical contribution, on the other side, provides scholars with the knowledge of how making their work more accessible, increasing their impact.

The authors add to the originality by providing a framework of the relevant literature for bibliometrics and altmetrics for future researchers. The authors describe altmetrics and present the differences with bibliometrics. The authors conclude the research with the implications of the conducted analysis and the potential directions for future research. Regarding manipulation, the authors provide with the techniques so researchers are aware of the methods in order to protect their academic profile.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

With over 3,000 academic journals in the fields of Business and Economics, most academics face a hard time selecting an adequate journal to submit their work to. In today's demanding academic environment and with the presence of different journal ranking lists (JRLs), the selection becomes more difficult when considering employment, promotion and funding. The purpose of this paper is to explore key differences among multiple JRLs pertinent to the latter common objectives. An extensive analysis is conducted to compare the content of journals in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality list, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the fields of Business and Economics. Then, a case of a university with medium research output is considered where scholarly performance evaluation is based on the ABDC Journal Quality List.

After ranking journals in the fields of Business and Economics based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, JCR's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and JCR's Eigenfactor (EF), a methodology is proposed to categorize journals in the three JRLs into the same categorization adopted by ABDC. The latter establishes a way to compare the four JRLs under consideration and serves as a basis to compare and analyze the content of journals in the ABDC Journal Quality list, Scopus and WoS. As a proxy impact metric, a normalized citation count is associated with each article based on Google Scholar. The publications of the considered university are then evaluated from the perspective of the four JRLs in terms of citation-based impact and quality while considering the exposure to popular world university ranking tables.

For journals classified under fourth tier by ABDC, over 53 and 59% are not indexed by Scopus and WoS, respectively. In this case study, over 42% of the publications appear in journals that are not listed in JCR despite the fact that over 94% of them are listed by the SJR list. Generally, publications that appear in journals listed by JCR achieve, on a yearly average, significantly higher citation rates when compared to those that appear in journals listed in ABDC and SJR Lists.

A four-tier mapping is proposed for consistent comparison among JRLs. Normalized citation count associated with each article based on Google Scholar is employed for evaluation. The findings provide recommendations for scholars, administrators and global universities, including Euro-Med Universities, on which JRL can be more influential for both faculty development and positioning of the university.