9,010 research outputs found
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
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
Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity?
"Bibliometrics", "scientometrics", "informetrics", and "webometrics" can all
be considered as manifestations of a single research area with similar
objectives and methods, which we call "information metrics" or iMetrics. This
study explores the cognitive and social distinctness of iMetrics with respect
to the general information science (IS), focusing on a core of researchers,
shared vocabulary and literature/knowledge base. Our analysis investigates the
similarities and differences between four document sets. The document sets are
drawn from three core journals for iMetrics research (Scientometrics, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and Journal of
Informetrics). We split JASIST into document sets containing iMetrics and
general IS articles. The volume of publications in this representation of the
specialty has increased rapidly during the last decade. A core of researchers
that predominantly focus on iMetrics topics can thus be identified. This core
group has developed a shared vocabulary as exhibited in high similarity of
title words and one that shares a knowledge base. The research front of this
field moves faster than the research front of information science in general,
bringing it closer to Price's dream.Comment: Accepted for publication in Scientometric
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
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
- …