Search results

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.

The goal of this study was to investigate the co-citation of information security patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database.

This research is a scientometrics study that has been conducted using the co-citation analysis. The statistical population of the present study includes all patents of information security filed in the USPTO database from 1971 to 2015. As a result of this search, 30,736 patents were retrieved. In this investigation, UCINET software and its complementary package (NetDraw) were employed to plot scientific maps.

The findings of this study indicated an upward trend of patents in the field of information security between 1971 and 2015. The “California State” has the top world rank in information security inventions, followed by “Japan” and the “Washington State.” “VAN WIE, DAVID M” is the most cited inventor in the field of information security. The analysis of inventors' co-citation data indicated that “ADAMS, NEIL- LITTLE” and “HERBERT ANTHONY” had the highest co-citation rates with each other and were ranked first. The survey of high-citation inventors based on centrality indices indicated that “LEACH, PAUL J” graded first in degree centrality, “BENALOH, JOSH D” in betweenness centrality and “BENALOH, JOSH D” in closeness centrality.

The co-citation analysis of patents can show the most important patents and the relationships between them. Such analyses can be useful for large-scale policymaking or identification of existing gaps and attempting to address them.

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.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.

This paper aims to propose a new qualitative indicator for the evaluation of the productions of researchers in any discipline.

Based on the study of existing quantitative indicators, the authors’ approach consisted of the hybridization of two indicators. This hybridization is based on the individual H_index (Hi_index) and H_index contemporary (Hc_index) weighted by qualitative factors. The initial sources of the data are online bibliographic databases, such as Google Scholar and Publish or Perish.

A new scientometric indicator was used to compare the scientific production quality of researchers and their classification (as part of a research community) as the classification of national and international research institutions. The authors have applied a new indicator to compare and classify the members of their laboratory, RIADI, according to their quality of scientific production.

The indicator is an improvement of the H_index. It is a measure that can have an impact on society (influencing research attitudes, affecting quality of research). By this contribution, the authors measure more than one aspect by involving all the external factors that can affect the quality of research.

This paper fulfils a gap in the literature concerning the absence of a qualitative indicator among the set of existing quantitative measures. Additionally, this paper addresses the limitations of the existing qualitative practices, such as peer review and citation analysis. In the new qualitative indicator, the authors involve all of these qualitative aspects: the influence of the age of the paper, the number of co-authors, the order of the co-authors, the impact factor of journals and the conference rankings.

In order to solve the current imbalance of academic resources within the discipline, this article builds a three-dimensional talent evaluation model based on the topic–author–citation based on the z index and proposes the ZAS index to evaluate scholars on different research topics within the discipline.

Based on the sample data of the CSSCI journals in the discipline of physical education in the past five years, the keywords were classified into 13 categories of research topics including female sports. The ZAS index of scholars on topic of female sports and so on was calculated, and quantitative indexes such as h index p index and z index were calculated. Comparative analysis of the evaluation effect was performed.

It is found that compared with the h index and p index, the z index achieves a better balance between the quantity, quality and citation distribution of scholars' results and effectively recognizes that the citation quality is higher and the number of citations of each paper is more balanced. In addition, compared to the z index, this article is based on a ZAS index model with an improved three-dimensional topic–author–citation relationship in research fields such as female sports.

It can identify some outstanding scholars who are engaged in small-scale or emerging topic research such as female sports and are excellent in different research areas. Talents create an objective and fair evaluation environment. At the same time, the ranking ability of ZAS indicators in the evaluation of talents is the strongest, and it is expected to be used in practical evaluations.

This study aims to examine the major policy issues regarding the formation of a Greek Citation Index.

Literature search for determining international practices on the formation of citation indexes and applied inquiries on the major citation indexes available today online for which goals, policies on inclusion of published research, issues on impact factor, major concerns on distribution and use were examined within the Greek parameters imposed by language barriers, readability and usability. A blueprint of scholarly Greek production in humanities and social sciences (H&SS) was made along with the development of a mechanism for assessing and incorporating journals to the index.

The study reports on the following issues: selection of H&SS as a start of point for the citation index; setting of the index’s goals and objectives in view of the use of impact factor for the assessment of academics; comparison of international to national production of citation indexes; development of a mechanism needed to establish policies regarding the use of standards, selection of material, compliance with repository policies and open-access practices; and assessment of difficulties arising from language (and alphabet) differences, demographics, audience and scientific production.

The paper presents the designing of an information tool in a unique language environment and in isolation from the international indexing community. In addition, it contributes to the adoption of international indicators, such as impact factor, and their implementation within the Greek environment and the specification of parameters arising from language, demographics and publishing practices of the country.

With the development of Web2.0 and publishing digitalization, traditional libraries and evaluation citation system can no longer indicate academic paper influence validly. Therefore, it is necessary to construct smart library and find the evaluation effect of Internet metrics-Usage.

This study puts forward four indexes of scholars’ evaluation based on Usage (total Usage (U), average Usage rate (U/N), h_u-index and p_u-index), which refer to citation indexes, takes the 35 high-output scholars in the field of library and information science in the WoS database as examples, analyzes performance of different scholars evaluation indexes based on Usage and compares the differences and correlations between “citation indicators” and “usage indicators.”

This study results show that p_u-index is the strongest index to evaluate scholars. Second, there is a high correlation and strong mechanism based on time dependence and interactions between Usage and citation. Third, compared to “citation indicators”, the “usage indicators” has a larger numerical value and wider measurement range, which can break the time limitation of citation, and scientifically evaluate young scholars and newly published paper by scholars.

This paper proposes the p_u-index – a relatively superior mathematical model for Usage and provides reference for the scholars’ evaluation policy of the smart library. This model can not only provide fair evaluation conditions for young scientists but also shorten the evaluation effect of the time lag of cited indicators. In addition, the “usage indicators” in this paper are new scientific evaluation indicators generated in the network environment. Applying it to the academic evaluation system will make the research papers widely accepted by the public and will also encourage scientists to follow the development of the Internet age and pursue research with equal emphasis on quantity and quality.

Potential ethnocentric biases in stated preference journal rankings are reviewed and revealed preference ranking methods are investigated. The aim of the paper is to identify an approach to ranking journals that minimises ethnocentric biases and better represents the international impact of research.

Coverage of marketing journals in Ulrich's, EBSCO, SSCI, JCR, Scopus and Google Scholar is explored. Citing references to 20 articles are analysed to determine citation time lags and explore the content of SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. To further review the extent of citation coverage, h‐index scores are generated for ten marketing journals using data from SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. In total, 36 marketing journals are ranked using the g‐index and Google Scholar data and results are compared to ten published rankings.

Stated preference ranking studies of marketing journals rely on US‐based respondents. The coverage of EBSCO, SSCI, JCR and Scopus databases is not representative of marketing's literature as they have few international sources, and a disproportionate coverage of US‐based journals. Google Scholar provides broader international coverage. The Impact Factor may be inappropriate for marketing journals as a large proportion of citations occur more than five years post‐publication. Results indicate that the g‐index is a superior approach to measuring the impact of marketing journals internationally.

Exposure of the limitations in existing ranking methods should encourage improvements in the development and use of journal rankings.

The investigations present original evidence to support long‐term concerns about approaches to journal ranking and citation analysis.