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.

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 aim of this paper is to conduct a study regarding the indexing of open access journals in three large, commercially available full‐text aggregation databases and using Journal Citation Reports Metrics File to further explore the journals that were being indexed.

Using publicly available database title lists produced by the full‐text aggregation database publishers, titles and title metadata were analyzed and compared to data from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) metrics file in order to investigate the availability of open access (OA) scholarly journals. Subject Category Impact Factor Ranking Quartiles and Percentiles (SCIFRQs and SCIFRPs) were used as part of this investigation as indicators of the research significance of these OA journals.

Results showed that very small percentages of open access journals were indexed in each of the full‐text aggregators studied. A total of 7.9 percent of titles included in journal citation reports were OA journals. This study also reports the averaged SCIFRPs of OA journals for all subject areas with more than five journals included in JCR. The average SCIFRP for OA journals included in JCR was 34.49 percent and the averaged SCIFRP for all OA journals indexed by full‐text aggregation databases being studied is 41.2 percent. This study points to large differences in the rate of indexing OA journals by different databases.

Unlike past studies into the indexing of OA journals, this is not limited to selected subject areas and shows indications of the research prominence of OA journals with JCR derived data.

Describes how the idea of normalised impact factor came into being and the method of its determination. In all, five properties of the normalised impact factor have been identified and described. It is observed that the ranking of a journal in its own category is better revealed by the normalised impact factor and the average normalised impact factor seems to provide better indication of the comparative performance of a set of laboratories engaged in diverse areas of research.

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.

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.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.