A categorization of arguments for counting methods for publication and citation indicators

Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and compared the result with discussions of arguments for counting methods in three older studies. Based on the underlying logics of the arguments I have arranged the arguments in four groups. Group 1 focuses on arguments related to what an indicator measures, Group 2 on the additivity of a counting method, Group 3 on pragmatic reasons for the choice of counting method, and Group 4 on an indicator's influence on the research community or how it is perceived by researchers. This categorization can be used to describe and discuss how bibliometric studies with publication and citation indicators argue for counting methods

Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility

There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchers’ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review

This paper covers a total of 82 bibliometric studies on single journals (62 studies cover unique titles) published between 1998 and 2008 grouped into the following fields; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (12 items); Medical and Health Sciences (19 items); Sciences and Technology (30 items) and Library and Information Sciences (21 items). Under each field the studies are described in accordance to their geographical location in the following order, United Kingdom, United States and Americana, Europe, Asia (India, Africa and Malaysia). For each study, elements described are (a) the journal’s publication characteristics and indexation information; (b) the objectives; (c) the sampling and bibliometric measures used; and (d) the results observed. A list of journal titles studied is appended. The results show that (a)bibliometric studies cover journals in various fields; (b) there are several revisits of some journals which are considered important; (c) Asian and African contributions is high (41.4 of total studies; 43.5 covering unique titles), United States (30.4 of total; 31.0 on unique titles), Europe (18.2 of total and 14.5 on unique titles) and the United Kingdom (10 of total and 11 on unique titles); (d) a high number of bibliometrists are Indians and as such coverage of Indian journals is high (28 of total studies; 30.6 of unique titles); and (e) the quality of the journals and their importance either nationally or internationally are inferred from their indexation status

Edited Volumes, Monographs, and Book Chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI)

In 2011, Thomson-Reuters introduced the Book Citation Index (BKCI) as part of the Science Citation Index (SCI). The interface of the Web of Science version 5 enables users to search for both "Books" and "Book Chapters" as new categories. Books and book chapters, however, were always among the cited references, and book chapters have been included in the database since 2005. We explore the two categories with both BKCI and SCI, and in the sister social sciences (SoSCI) and the arts & humanities (A&HCI) databases. Book chapters in edited volumes can be highly cited. Books contain many citing references but are relatively less cited. This may find its origin in the slower circulation of books than of journal articles. It is possible to distinguish between monographs and edited volumes among the "Books" scientometrically. Monographs may be underrated in terms of citation impact or overrated using publication performance indicators because individual chapters are counted as contributions separately in terms of articles, reviews, and/or book chapters.Comment: Journal of Scientometric Research, 2012, in pres

What does Hirsch index evolution explain us? A case study: Turkish Journal of Chemistry

The evolution of Turkish Journal of Chemistry (Turk J. Chem) Hirsch index (h-index) over the period 1995-2005 is studied and determined in the case of the self and without self-citations. It is seen that the effect of Hirsch index of Turk J. Chem has a highly positive trend during the last five years. It proves that Turk J. Chem is improving itself both in quantity and quality since h-index reflects peer review, and peer review reflects research quality of a journal.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figure