Habits of publication and citation by scientific field: Main differences based on JCR journals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.4.1003Keywords:
Citation, impact factor, journal evaluation, JCR journal categories, citation habitsAbstract
Journals’ impact indicators are not comparable among scientific fields because of systematic differences in publication and citation habits. In this work, the impact factor was decomposed into five independent variables, as applied to journal category, fields, and areas considered in the databases of the leading provider of science indicators, Thomson Reuters. A Principal Component Analysis was employed to find the sources of the variance and a Cluster Analysis was used to detect similarities. In spite of systematic differences between disciplines, the principal components explain 78% of the total variance. From the statistical point of view, some categories of Science are closer to the Social Sciences than to Science and vice versa.
Downloads
References
Althouse, B. M.; West, J. D.; Bergstrom, C. T.; Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 60, nº 1, 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20936
Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, v. 41, nº 1, 93–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410110
Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, v. 68, nº 5, 314.
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behaviour. Journal of Documentation, v. 64, nº 1, 45–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2010). Indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Revista Espa-ola de Documentación Científica, v. 33, nº 2, 225–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.2.733
Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2011a). Aplicación empírica de un indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Cultura y Educación, v. 23, nº 2, 297–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/113564011795944695
Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2011b). Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index. Scientometrics, v. 88, nº 3, 729–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0453-3
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R. (2002). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, v. 27, nº 1, 29–48.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, v. 178, nº 4060, 471–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471
Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley.
Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics, v. 1, nº 4, 359–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306
González-Pereira, B.; Guerrero-Bote, V. P.; Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 379–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
Leydesdorff, L. (2006): Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, v. 57, nº 5, 601–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20322
Leydesdorff, L., y Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the Impact Factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, v. 62, nº 2, 217–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21450
Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T. (2010a). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 4, 644–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.05.003
Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T. (2010b). Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 61, nº 11, 2365–2369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21371
Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, v. 5, nº 1, 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002
Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals, Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
Opthof, T.; Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance, Journal of Informetrics. v. 4, nº 3, 423–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003
Pudovkin, A. I.; Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 53, nº 13, 1113–1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10153
Rafols, I.; Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 60, nº 9, 1823–1835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086
Rosvall, M.; Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 105, nº 4, 1118–1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706851105
Rosvall, M.; Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE, v. 5, nº 1, e8694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008694
Van Raan, A. F. J.; Van Leeuwen, T. N.; Visser, M. S.; Van Eck, N. J.; Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 431–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.008
Wagner, C.; Roessner, J. D.; Bobb, K.; Klein, J.; Boyack, K.; Keyton, J.; Rafols, I.; Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature, Journal of Informetrics, v. 5, nº 1, 14–26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
Waltman, L.; Van Eck, N. J. (2010). The relation between Eigenfactor, Audience Factor, and Influence Weight. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 61, nº 7, 1476–1486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21354
Waltman, L.; Yan, E.; Van Eck, N. J. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, v. 89, nº 1, 301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0449-z
Zitt, M.; Small, H. (2008): Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 59, nº 11, 1856–1860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20880
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
