Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to assess the degree of international visibility for the Romanian scientific social sciences journals included in the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) database. By examining the national distribution of authors and the proportion of co-authorship within and outside Romania, the paper proposes the use of the Theil Index and its decomposition as a tool to assess international visibility. Although there are 10 ISI social sciences journals in Romania, the international visibility of these journals is relatively low; the number of foreign authors as a percentage of the total number of authors remains below 30 % for most journals. There is a high degree of geographic concentration for the foreign authors, as most come from two countries. Regression models also indicate that the number of authors from the same institution as the one that issues the journal affects significantly a journal’s Impact Factor. The number of articles authored exclusively by mixed teams (including authors from the same institution that issues the journal and authors from abroad or authors from other Romanian institutions) as a percentage of the total number of articles published is extremely low (8 %). This suggests that the Impact Factor, when used as a measure of research quality for the Romanian social sciences journals, may create bias in the judgement of those interpreting the results of the Impact Factor rankings, favoring insularity at the expense of scientific collaboration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Society for Cell Biology. (2014). San Francisco declaration on research assessment. http://am.ascb.org/dora. Accessed 30 September 2015.
Anuradha, K. T., & Urs, S. R. (2007). Bibliometric indicators of Indian research collaboration patterns: A correspondence analysis. Scientometrics, 71, 179–189.
Braun, T., & Bujdosó, E. (1983). Gatekeeping patterns in the publication of analytical chemistry research. Talanta, 30, 161–167.
Chimalakonda, D., Cook, A. R., & Carrasco, L. R. (2014). Extreme inequalities of citation counts in environmental sciences. PeerJ PrePrints, https://peerj.com/preprints/265.pdf.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miguel, S. E., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research. Scientometrics, 102, 789–810.
Christensen, F. H., & Ingwersen, P. (1996). Online citation analysis: A methodological approach. Scientometrics, 37, 36–92.
Davis, P. M. (2008). Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better journal impact estimates than raw citation counts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 2186–2188.
Fassoulaki, A., Paraskeva, A., Papilas, K., & Karabinis, G. (2000). Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 84, 266–269.
Foley, J. A., & Della Sala, S. (2010). The impact of self-citation. Cortex, 46, 802–810.
Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72, 427–437.
Frandsen, T. F. (2007). Journal self-citations—Analysing the JIF mechanism. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 47–58.
Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67, 263–277.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort= double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50, 199–214.
Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanosciences ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36, 880–886.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 16569–16572.
Hsu, J. W., & Huang, D. W. (2010). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86, 317–324.
Kim, K. W. (2006). Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: Taking the context into consideration. Scientometrics, 66, 231–240.
Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. (2007). Global nanotechnology research literature overview. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1733–1747.
Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Bote-Guerrero, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 481–489.
Landry, R., & Amara, N. (1998). The impact of transition costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy, 27, 901–913.
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 28–32.
Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R. J., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 336, 655–657.
Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J., Persson, W., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28, 15–36.
Ministry of Education and Research (2007). The national plan for research, development, and innovation, 2007–2013. Bucharest: National Authority for Scientific Research.
Nagpaul, P. (1999). Transnational linkages of Indian science: A structural analysis. Scientometrics, 46, 109–140.
Narin, F., & Whitlow, E. (1990). Measurement of Scientific Cooperation and Co-authorship in CEC-related Areas of Science (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Report EUR 12900).
Osareh, F., & Wilson, C. S. (2002). Collaboration in Iranian scientific publications. Libri, 52, 88–98.
Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Collaboration and publication: How collaborative are scientists in South Africa? Scientometrics, 80, 419–439.
Szymanski, B. K., de la Rosa, J. L., & Krishnamoorthy, M. (2012). An Internet measure of the value of citations. Information Sciences, 185, 18–31.
Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2014). An examination of “citation circles” for social sciences journals in Eastern European countries. Scientometrics, 99, 209–231.
Theil, H. (1967). Economic and information theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Lariviére, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8, e64841.
Veugelers, R. (2010). Towards a multipolar science world: Trends and impact. Scientometrics, 82, 439–456.
Wagner, C. S., Brahmukulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries (No. RAND/MR-1357.0-WB). Rand Corp Santa Monica CA.
Wilson, C. S. (1999). Informetrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 107–247.
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1998). Internationalization of scientific journals: A measurement based on publication and citation scope. Scientometrics, 41, 255–271.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andrei, T., Teodorescu, D. & Mirică, A. Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals. Scientometrics 108, 1–20 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1949-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1949-7