Search results

A major problem in today’s scholarly publishing process is the long tails for the assignment of volume and issue numbers for approved articles. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which information science journals offer early view features and the effects of these features.

The study addresses three basic questions: Do the articles approved for publication in information science journals appear in the online platforms of these journals before the assignment of volume and issue numbers? How long do the articles wait in the online platforms before they get the volume and issue numbers? Is there a statistically significant relationship between the online accessing numbers of the articles before they are published and bibliometric indicators?

More than half of the information science journals complete the editorial process in reasonable durations and share new articles with their readers before publishing them. In some journals, there are articles that wait for more than a year to be assigned volume and issue numbers after the completion of the editorial process. There are statistically significant differences, in terms of both their impact factor and immediacy index values, between the journals that offer early view features and those that do not. Both the impact factor and the immediacy index values of the journals that provide early view are higher than the others.

Adopting the early view policy may significantly help increase the impact factor and immediacy index values of the journals, as well as the visibility of their contents

The answers to this study’s research questions offer a new perspective to overcome the challenges in the processes through which scientific products meet with their users.

This paper introduces a new bibliometric tool, the journal diffusion factor. An argument is presented that the bibliometric indicators commonly used to measure the quality of research (journal impact factor, immediacy index and cited half‐life) offer little insight into the transdisciplinary reception (thus the wider influence) of journals. The journal diffusion factor describes a neglected dynamic of citation reception and is intended as a complementary partial indicator for research evaluation purposes, to be read alongside existing well‐established indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest ways of improving the quality of Nigerian journals so that they would have global visibility and impact.

This is a literature‐based opinion paper which examines the implication of evaluating Nigerian academics using journal impact factors, despite its limitations, particularly to African scholars.

Revelations from available literature point to the fact that the use of journal impact factors is not an objective method of research evaluation, particularly in developing country like Nigeria. However, evaluation of research outputs remains critical in the overall socio‐economic, scientific and technological growth of any society. The creation of institutional repositories that are compliant with open archives initiatives by the relevant institutions in Nigeria would to a very large extent address the problem of visibility of research outputs coming from the country.

African scholars are disadvantaged by their work environment in the present global scholarly productivity. This paper proposes a number approaches to improve the quality and global visibility of Nigerian scholarly productivity so that journal impact factors should no longer be a parameter for research evaluation in the country.

The originality of the paper lies in the strategies proposed for improving the quality of journals in Nigeria.

By developing a methodology for on‐line citation analysis, the international characteristics of scientific journals have been analysed on the basis of correlations between the geographical distribution patterns of authors, citations and subscriptions. The study covered seven selected LIS journals. Assuming that the numbers of authors and citations in each geographical region follow the Poisson distribution, the hypothesis was tested, that the intensities are proportional to the subscriptions. In most cases the correlation between authors and citations was so positive that the international visibility and impact of the scientific journals can be defined by these two variables. As regards the distribution pattern of subscribers, authors and citations, however, the test showed very weak or no correlations. The analysis of the statistical significance of differences gave some useful data, the importance of which to marketing and publishing strategies is obvious. The paper suggests examining also the knowledge export of journals as an additional criterion for the evaluation of their impact, and the quality of research published in them. The comparison of Journal Impact Factors (JIF) is another contribution of this study, aimed to enhance the use of impact factor analysis with various time intervals. We demonstrate new and flexible ways of using the JIF for diachronous and synchronous analyses. The study brings new dimensions to the discussions of the impact, status and image of scientific journals. It focuses on the utilisation of informetric analysis to go beyond the simplistic use of the JIF and to get a deeper understanding of the “real” impact of international scientific journals and their market.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the share of coronavirus publications and its citation-based indicators in various journal impact factor quartiles to discover their relationship and analyze the advantages of Q1 publications.

Bibliometric analyses of world coronavirus research publications (articles and reviews) indexed in Web of Science database over 20 years among four journal quartiles were performed.

The publication and citation shares in various journal quartiles were decreased in the following order: Q1 > Q2 > Q3 > Q4. World coronavirus publications/citations share in Q1 journals were on average 1.78/4.18, 2.75/7.90 and 5.07/27.79 times greater than Q2, Q3 and Q4 publications, respectively. Moreover, similar patterns were obtained for various research performance dimensions: impact, excellence, corporate interest and funding indicators. These indicators of Q1 publications were much better than the corresponding values for world overall and infectious disease literature. Thus, there was a clear research performance advantage of Q1 coronavirus publications.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the journal impact factor quartiles and its impact on coronavirus research performance. The results/findings of this study are useful for many stakeholders to enhance the research influence by considering journal impact factor quartiles especially Q1 journals.

After 40 years, IJPDLM received its first impact factor from Web of Science in 2010. This anniversary editorial provides a retrospective bibliometric assessment of IJPDLM over its initial five years as a Web of Science journal (2011-2015). First, IJPDLM’s citation metrics are compared to those for the Web of Science journal subject category of Management. Next, IJPDLM’s most cited articles, best papers and special issues together with the international diversity of the journal’s author base from 2011 to 2015 are reviewed. The analysis also presents the journals that cite IJPDLM most frequently, as well as the journals most frequently cited in IJPDLM. Finally, IJPDLM is compared to peer journals in the logistics and SCM field on various scholarly metrics including impact factor, five-year impact factor, h5-index, number of citations received and self-citation rate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Retrospective bibliometric analysis of IJPDLM from 2011 to 2015.

Boosted by the journal’s admission to Web of Science in 2010, IJPDLM has made steady progress toward fulfilling the mission of providing its constituents with timeliness, inclusiveness and impact.

The comparison of IJPDLM’s scholarly metrics with those of peer journals and journals in the Web of Science Management category will be of interest and value to logistics and SCM researchers.

The retrospective overview and celebration of IJPDLM’s progress over the last five years and future directions will be of interest to the journal’s stakeholders and prospective authors.

In the twenty-first century, technology and information are continuously being changed and rapidly updated. Many new innovations and discoveries emerge daily. This study aims to identify significant pioneers and milestones in academic research through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal citations.

This study proposes several methods and formulas for recommending Nobel prizes candidates. Through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal article citations, this research facilitates the collection of numerous significant research results. The authors propose several new, useful formulae, including a pioneer paper impact factor, a popular classical paper impact factor, a ranking factor of specific fields, a groundbreaking author impact factor, and a frequently cited author impact factor.

This study utilizes historical information on the Nobel Prize to examine, revise, and verify existing methods for recommending and predicting candidates, in order to enhance the accuracy and availability of the approach presented by this study. The experimental results show that the approach designed in this study had a rate of successful prediction exceeding 50 percent. The major reason for producing reasonable results is that the milestone paper and pioneer paper are filtered first, and then the important candidate authors from the most pioneer paper are filtered. Therefore, the results indicated the feasibility of the methods developed by this study.

The purpose of the Nobel Prize is to reward original research findings or inventions that significantly and positively influence human life. However, due to budget limitations, only five fields are included in the academic domains for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The authors develop one useful new way to identify milestone papers and authors. Young students can choose, read and learn from these milestone papers. The pioneer authors identified by this research could be the recommended candidate list for some academic awards.

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.

Ranking relevant journals is very critical for researchers to choose their publication outlets, which can affect their research performance. In the management information systems (MIS) subject, many related studies conducted surveys as the subjective method for identifying MIS journal rankings. However, very few consider other objective methods, such as journals’ impact factors and h-indexes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper, top 50 ranked journals identified by researchers’ perceptions are examined in terms of the correlation to the rankings by their impact factors and h-indexes. Moreover, a hybrid method to combine these different rankings based on Borda count is used to produce new MIS journal rankings.

The results show that there are low correlations between the subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings. In addition, the new MIS journal rankings by the Borda count approach can also be considered for future researches.

The contribution of this paper is to apply the Borda count approach to combine different MIS journal rankings produced by subjective and objective methods. The new MIS journal rankings and previous studies can be complementary to allow researchers to determine the top-ranked journals for their publication outlets.

The influencing factors of academic papers have always been the focus of attention in the field of Scientometrics. Exploring the influencing factors of altmetrics indicators and traditional literature indicators on academic papers is beneficial to better explore the potential significance and value of academic papers in the evaluation of scientific research. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Based on the latest JCR citation report, this paper selects 22 academic journals in the JIF Quartile Q1 journal of Information Science and Library Science, and then obtains the evaluation data of these journal papers from WOS database and Altmetric.com. This paper uses literature measurement, correlation analysis and regression analysis to explore the influencing factors of the paper.

The results show that the original influencing factors of academic papers have a significant impact on secondary influencing factors. What is more obvious is that the number of references (nr) presents a significant positive correlation with the total number of times (Z9), the number of uses (U1) and (U2).

This paper combines traditional literature indicators with Altmetrics indicators to study the influencing factors through primary influencing factors and secondary influencing factors. Through research, it denies the phenomenon that academic circles have published academic papers in the world in recent years to overemphasize certain factors to improve the influence of the paper.