What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- 308 Downloads
The paper is concerned with analysing what makes a great journal great in the sciences, based on quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAM). Alternative RAM are discussed, with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). Various ISI RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or 0-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored—By Even The Authors), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and three new RAM, namely Historical Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (H-STAR), 2 Year Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (2Y-STAR), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). The RAM data are analysed for the 6 most highly cited journals in 20 highly-varied and well-known ISI categories in the sciences, where the journals are chosen on the basis of 2YIF. The application to these 20 ISI categories could be used as a template for other ISI categories in the sciences and social sciences, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of ISI disciplines. In addition to evaluating the 6 most highly cited journals in each of 20 ISI categories, the paper also highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM, finds that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the most highly cited scientific journals, determines that PI-BETA is not highly correlated with the other RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding research performance. In order to provide a meta analysis summary of the RAM, which are predominantly ratios, harmonic mean rankings are presented of the 13 RAM for the 6 most highly cited journals in each of the 20 ISI categories. It is shown that emphasizing THE impact factor, specifically the 2-year impact factor, of a journal to the exclusion of other informative RAM can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence on different disciplines, especially in view of inflated journal self citations.
KeywordsResearch Assessment Measures (RAM) Impact factors Immediacy Eigenfactor Article Influence Cited Article Influence h-index C3PO Zinfluence PI-BETA IFI H-STAR 2Y-STAR
JEL ClassificationsC43 C10 Z0
The authors wish to thank two referees for very helpful comments and suggestions. For financial support, the first author acknowledges the National Science Council, Taiwan; the second author acknowledges the Australian Research Council, National Science Council, Taiwan, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; and the third author acknowledges the Royal Society of New Zealand, Marsden Fund.
- Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. C and RL News, 68, 314–316.Google Scholar
- Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chang, C.-L., McAleer, M., & Oxley, L. (2010). Great expectatrics: Great papers, great journals, great econometrics. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1618167.
- ISI Web of Science (2010). Journal citation reports, essential science indicators. Thomson Reuters ISI.Google Scholar
- Kermarrec, A.-M., Faou, E., Merlet, J.-P., Robert, P., & Segoufin, L. (2007). What do bibliometric indicators measure? INRIA Evaluation Committee Analysis Document. http://www.inria.fr/inria/organigramme/documents/ce_indicateurs_en.pdf.
- Neuhaus, C., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts: A case study on the limitations of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.Google Scholar