Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of selected factors in journal citations. Various factors can affect citations distribution of journals. Among them, skewness of citations distribution, author self-citation, journal self-citation and recitations (RCs) have been studied.

The present study based on 16 systematically selected journals indexed in Scopus under the subject category “Library and Information Science.” The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in the selected journals in the year 2011. The temporal citation window from 2011 to 2014 was taken for analysis. Tools like, Scopus author ID, ORCID and author profiles from Google Scholar were used to minimize the error due to homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names.

It is found that citations distribution in majority of the journals under the study is highly skewed and more likely to follow log-normal distribution. The nature of authorship in papers was found to have positive effect on citation counts. Self-citing data show that higher ranked journals have rather less direct impact on total citation counts than their lower counterpart. RCs are also found to be more in top-tier journals. Though the influence of self-citations and RCs were relatively less at individual level on total citations of journals but combined, they can play a dominant role and can affect total citation counts of journals at significant level.

The present study is based on Scopus database only. Therefore, citation data can be affected by the inherent limitation of Scopus. Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample and tracing citations from an array of citation indexes, such as Web of Science, Google citations, Indian Citation Index, etc.

This paper reinforces that the citations received by journals can be affected by the factors selected in this study. Therefore, the study provides better understanding of the role of these selected factors in journal citations.

The purpose of this study is to attempt to suggest an adjustment in Iran's national publication strategy based on the country‐specific Matthew core journals. It investigates Iran's performance in its national journal set, and proposes a more prominent journal subset.

A citation analysis method is applied to study Iran's scientific performance in its national journal set. The data were extracted from the Science Citation Index at Web of Science and JCR and imported to SPSS for further refinement and analysis.

The results showed that Iran experienced comparatively considerable citation loss. Surplus citations are concentrated in a small number of journals, presented as Iran's positive Matthew core journals. The results also confirm a relatively poor publication strategy adopted by Iranian scientists and that a publication concentration does not necessarily enhance the chance of being widely cited.

These findings imply that Iran needs to watch more vigilantly the functioning of its science system. To improve its presence at the international level, Iran should re‐orient its publication strategy towards a more prominent one. This may be the case for similar science systems, where the emphasis is given to quantity rather than quality.

Country‐specific Matthew core journals, with serious citation competition, can serve as an important criterion to monitor the functioning of science systems regarding publication strategy. This is the first empirical study to employ the concept to suggest improvements in a country's publication strategy.

This paper aims to assess the impact of research in the field of scientometrics by using the altmetrics (social media metrics) approach.

This is an applied study which uses scientometric and altmetrics methods. The research population consists of the studies and their citations published in the two core journals (Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics) in a period of five years (included 1,738 papers and 11,504 citations). Collecting and extracting the studies directly was carried from Springer and ScienceDirect databases. The Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com, was used to collect data on studies from various sources (www.altmetric.com/). The research studies with the altmetric scores were identified (included 830 papers). The altmetric scores represent the quantity and quality of attention that the study has received on social media. The association between altmetric scores and citation indicators was investigated by using correlation tests.

The findings indicated a significant, positive and weak statistical relationship between the number of citations of the studies published in the field of scientometrics and the altmetric scores of these studies, as well as the number of readers of these studies in the two social networks (Mendeley and Citeulike) with the number of their citations. In this study, there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of citations of the studies and the number of readers on Twitter. In sum, the above findings suggest that some social networks and their indices can be representations of the impact of scientific papers, similar citations. However, owing to the weakness of the correlation coefficients, the replacement of these two categories of indicators is not recommended, but it is possible to use the altmetrics indicators as complementary scientometrics indicators in evaluating the impact of research.

Investigating the impact of research on social media can reflect the social impact of research and can also be useful for libraries, universities, and research organizations in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation processes.

The introduction of “altmetrics” as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields.

The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013).

There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on “exchange rates (ERs)” for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results.

These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

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

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.

(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.

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.

This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals.

Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading.

It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn.

This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators’ composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities.

Prior studies in citation-based journal rankings tend to be static to compare across journals. One journal may be judged better in citations than other journals at some points in time but not at the others. The assumption that the citation distribution is normally distributed and that the citation observations are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) may not be appropriate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study uses a stochastic dominance (SD) analysis, which overcomes the dynamic nature of changes in citation over time. The SD method proposed by Linton, Maasoumi, and Whang (hereafter LMW, 2005) does not require the data to be i.i.d. We use the LMW method to compare the relative ranking of 23 finance journals using citations for all articles from them during 1990-2010.

The study indicates that the citation distribution changes over time. Thus a SD analysis is a better approach for a comparison of journal ranking. The findings unambiguously place JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, and JFI in the top five spots of the finance journal ranking. The “near-top” journals, such as JBF, JCF, and FM, are not clear cut in the SD analysis.

The results confirm that ranking for the lower ranked journals may change over time especially, but the top three journals appear to be robust across methods and over time.

The results of SD analysis provides more convincing evidence on finance journal ranking and could be useful to rank academic institutions, faculty research quality, and help the authors to decide what to read and which journals are influential.

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

Purpose – Firm acquisitions have been shown to serve as a way to gain access to international markets, technological assets, products or other valuable resources of the target firm. Given this heterogeneity of takeover motivations and the skewness of the distribution of the deal value we show whether and how the importance of different takeover motivations changes along the deal value distribution.

Methodology/approach – On the basis of a comprehensive dataset of 652 European mergers and acquisitions in the period from 1997 to 2003, we use quantile regressions to decompose the deal value at different points of its distribution.

Findings – Our results indicate that the importance of technological assets is higher for smaller target firms while the importance of non-technological assets seems to be higher for larger targets. The findings support the view on small acquisition targets to complement the acquirer's technology portfolio while larger acquisition targets tend to be used to gain access to international markets.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – Our findings suggest that the average firm as a reference for study might not be appropriate to address as the size of the target firm influences the value attribution to the target's assets.

Practical implications (if applicable) – Managers in the acquiring firm should be aware that they might overpay for the technological assets of a small firm. However, the acquisition of larger targets requires a well-developed integration strategy.

Originality/value of paper – For the first time, the broad merger motive of technology acquisition has been further qualified according to the size of the target which exhibits a considerable impact.