Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statistical Evaluation of Bibliographical Data: Evaluation of Journals, Scientists, and Institutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Introduction to Scientific Publishing

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

Abstract

This chapter summarizes briefly different bibliometric measures for assessing journals, scientists, and institutions. The most commonly used performance measures, i.e. the impact factor and the \(h\)-index, are introduced in detail. The original intention is highlighted and the actual—sometimes contradictory—use is explained. Definitions, example calculations, strengths and criticisms are presented. In addition, a short review on other performance measures is given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Basic tools of the internet are: telnet (remote connection with other systems), e-mail (electronic messaging system), FTP (to locate and transfer files to and from remote locations), gopher (menu access to the internet), www (world wide web) [14].

  2. 2.

    More on the evaluation of scientists and research can be found in Sect. 6.5.

  3. 3.

    This evaluation will replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from 2014 on.

  4. 4.

    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) Northern Ireland.

  5. 5.

    It must ne noted here that the Portuguese foundation appoints an international and external panel for the evaluation. This strategy—to avoid any national ‘amigo networking’—should be highly recognized in the scientific community.

  6. 6.

    Typical disciplines from the natural sciences are biology, chemistry, physics, materials science, earth science, atmospheric science, oceanography, and astronomy.

  7. 7.

    Typical disciplines from the formal sciences are mathematics, logic, statistics, information theory, and theoretical computer science. Formal sciences are many times opposed to the empirical sciences, i.e. natural and social sciences.

  8. 8.

    The arts can be classified in performing arts (dance, music, theater), visual arts (drawing, architecture, painting, conceptual art, and video games) and literature arts.

  9. 9.

    Baseline or expected citations are associated to a specific journal, a specific year, and a specific article type [13].

  10. 10.

    The ‘Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking’ is also known under the name the ‘Academic Ranking of World Universities’ (ARWU).

  11. 11.

    It should be noted here that this is not the classical peer-review process as introduced in Sect. 6.5 where the basis the opinion of a few experts which evaluate selected publications or research reports.

  12. 12.

    Highly cited researchers were identified by Thomson Reuters between 2000 and 2008 based on analysis of papers covered in Web of Science from 1981-2008. Starting from December 2011, this information is now included in the function ‘ResearcherID’ and ‘Essential Science Indicators\(^\circledR \)’.

References

  1. de Bellis N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? (Documentation notes). J Doc 25:348–349

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bibliometrics: a brief introduction (2012). http://lisstudycircle.blogspot.com/2010/10/bibliometrics-brief-introduction.html. Cited 30 May 2012

  4. Lock SP (1989) “Journalology”: Are the quotes needed? Conf Biol Eds Views 12:57–59

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nalimov VV, Mulchenko ZM (1969) Naukometriya. Izuchenie Razvitiya Nauki kak Informatsionnogo Protsessa (Scientometrics. Study of the development of science as an information process), Nauka, Moscow, (English translation: 1971. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Technology Division. U.S. Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (NTIS, Report No. AD735- 634)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nacke O (1979) Informetrie: Ein neuer Name für eine neue Disziplin (Informetrics. A new name for a new discipline). Nachrichten für Dokumentation 30:212–226

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tague-Sutcliffe J (1992) An introduction to informetrics. Inf Process Manag 28:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Almind TC, Ingwersen P (1997) Informetric analyses on the world wide web: methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. J Doc 53:404–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bossy MJ (1995) The last of the litter: “Netometrics”. In: Noyer J-M (ed) Les sciences de l’information: bibliométrie, scientométrie, infométrie. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes

    Google Scholar 

  10. Björneborn L, Ingwersen P (2004) Toward a basic framework for webometrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 55:1216–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garfield E, Sher IH (1963) New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. Am Doc 14:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gross PLK, Gross EM (1927) College libraries and chemical education. Science 66:385–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pendlebury DA (2009) The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 57:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bradshaw J, Witney M, Come S (1995) Basic internet tools. Open Learning Agency, Burnaby

    Google Scholar 

  15. NN (2005) Not-so-deep impact. Nature 435:1003

    Google Scholar 

  16. Monastersky R (2005) The number that’s devouring science. Chron High Educ 52:A.12–A.17

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garfield E (1996) How can impact factors be improved? Br Med J 313:411–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can Med Assoc J 161:979–980

    Google Scholar 

  19. Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J Am Med Assoc 295:90–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:16569–16572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A (2006) A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69:169–173

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schubert A, Glänzel W (2007) A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. J Informetrics 1:179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Olden JD (2007) How do ecological journals stack-up? Ranking of scientific quality according to the \(h\)-index no access. Ecosience 14:370–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jasco P (2010) Pragmatic issues in calculating and comparing the quantity and quality of research through rating and ranking of researchers based on peer reviews and bibliometric indicators from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Online Inf Rev 34:972–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moed HF (2009) New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 57:13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glänzel W, Moed HF (2002) Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53:171–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM (2010) Citation analysis comparison of Web of \({\text{ Science }}^{{\rm {R}}\!\!\!\!\!\bigcirc }\), Scopus\(^{\text{ TM }}\), SciFinder\(^{{\rm {R}}\!\!\!\!\!\bigcirc }\), and Google Scholar. J Electron Resour Med Libr 7:196–217

    Google Scholar 

  28. Journal Citation Reports—Eigenfactor score (2012). http://0-admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/JCR/help/heigenfact.htm. Cited 14 August 2012

  29. Journal Citation Reports—Article influence score (2012). http://0-admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/JCR/help/heigenfact.htm. Cited 14 August 2012

  30. González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F (2010) A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. J Informetrics 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22:2623–2628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moed HF (2010) Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J Informetrics 4:265–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leydesdorff L, Opthof T (2010) Scopus’s Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on fractional counting of citations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61:2365–2369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sheil M (2008) Elements of a national research and innovative framework: the ERA initiative. AFR higher education conference, 01 March 2008. http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/AFRA_%20HigherEducationSummit.pdf. Cited 31 August 2012

  35. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA (2011) Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 87:499–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Research Excellence Framework (2012). http://www.ref.ac.uk/. Cited 31 August 2012

  37. Garfield E (1980) Premature discovery or delayed recognition—Why? Curr Content 21:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  38. Baty P (2010) Back to square one on the rankings front. The Australian, February 17. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/back-to-square-one-on-the-rankings-front/story-e6frgcko-1225831101658. Cited 12 September 2012

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Biosciences and Medical Engineering (FBME), University of Technology Malaysia (UTM), UTM, 81310, Skudai, Malaysia

    Andreas Öchsner

  2. Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    Andreas Öchsner

Authors
  1. Andreas Öchsner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Öchsner .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Öchsner, A. (2013). Statistical Evaluation of Bibliographical Data: Evaluation of Journals, Scientists, and Institutions. In: Introduction to Scientific Publishing. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38645-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38646-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation