Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

Background

Optimizing access to high-quality scientific journals has become an important priority for academic departments, including the ability to read the scientific literature and the ability to afford to publish papers in those journals. In this contribution, we assess the question of whether institutional investment in scientific journals aligns with the journals where researchers send their papers for publication, and where they serve as unpaid reviewers and editors.

Methods

We assembled a unique suite of information about the publishing habits of our Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, including summaries of 3,540 journal publications by 35 faculty members. These data include economic costs of journals to institutions and to authors, benefits to authors in terms of journal prestige and citation rates, and considerations of ease of reading access for individuals both inside and outside the university. This dataset included data on institutional costs, including subscription pricing (rarely visible to scholars), and "investment" by scholars in supporting journals, such as time spent as editors and reviewers.

Results

Our results highlighted the complex set of relationships between these factors, and showed that institutional costs often do not match well with payoffs in terms of benefits to researchers (e.g., citation rate, prestige of journal, ease of access). Overall, we advocate for greater cost-benefit transparency to help compare different journals and different journal business models; such transparency would help both researchers and their institutions in investing wisely the limited resources available to academics.

Research, Reading, and Publication Habits of Nurses and Nursing Students Applied to Impact Journals: International Multicentre Study

Publishing in JCR and SJR journals has become crucial for curricular development. Results from nursing investigations "compete" for publication in journals which are not specific to the field of care, affecting the academic development of these investigators. This phenomenon may lead to an ongoing adverse effect on nursing researchers and academics engaged in research in nursing care. The aim of this study was to evaluate habits regarding scientific literature consulting, the transfer of published material, and the citation of nursing investigations. A cross-sectional descriptive study by means of questionnaires was carried out, focusing on both Spanish and Portuguese nurses. The findings of the study reveal the following reasons for reading the scientific literature: that the language was understood; for learning and applying what was learnt; that the journal was of open access; for elaborating protocols and work procedures; and that the journal was indexed in scientific databases and in nursing databases. The reasons for reading, using, and publishing in journals were related to knowledge of the language and the associated usefulness of learning and applying knowledge. Creating a specific index of research publications in nursing will have a positive effect on the scientific production of caring methodologies.

Evaluating individual scientific output normalized to publication age and academic field through the Scientometrics.org project

When evaluating the publication performance of a scientist one has to consider not only the difference in publication norms in different scientific fields, but also the length of the academic career of the investigated researcher. Here, our goal was to establish a database suitable as a reference for the ranking of scientific performance by normalizing the researchers output to those with the same academic career length and active in same scientific field. By using the complete publication and citation data of 17,072 Hungarian researchers, we established a framework enabling the quick assessment of a researcher’s scientific output by comparing four parameters (h-index, yearly independent citations received, number of publications, and number of high impact publications), to the age-matched values of all other researchers active in the same scientific discipline. The established online tool available at www.scientometrics.org could be an invaluable help for faster and more evidence-based grant review processes.

The State of Research in Fracture-Related Infection—A Bibliometric Analysis

Background and Objectives: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a challenging complication in trauma surgery. A consensus definition of FRI has only recently been published. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the state of research related to FRI. Material and Methods: A systemic literature review was conducted on research on FRI published between 2017 and 2020. The Web of Science database was used, and a bibliometric analysis was performed. To provide robust evidence regarding the impact of publications, the behavior of publications in non-traditional dissemination channels was analyzed. For this, the Research Interest Score and the Altmetric Score were combined. The Research Interest Score was calculated from information extracted from ResearchGate, while Altmetric Score includes information from different websites and apps with a significant volume of traffic, such as Twitter. Results: A total of 131 published papers were identified. The most significant contribution came from the United States and European countries. The most relevant articles were published by the journal Injury—International Journal of the Care of the Injured. A positive correlation was observed between the number of citations and Research Interest Scores, whereas the number of citations and Altmetric Score showed no correlation. The social media platform most used by FRI researchers was Twitter. Conclusions: By evaluating the status of publications for FRI between 2017 and 2020, an upward trend in the number of publications was evident. This could be related to the increasing acceptance of the long-needed definition for FRI and the implications it carries for daily clinical practice.

Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health

Outcome reporting bias is one of the fundamental forms of publication bias. It implies publishing only outcomes that have positive results. The aim of this observational study was to explore primary outcome discrepancies between registry of clinical trials and their corresponding publications, since these can indicate outcome reporting bias in child mental health. Data were extracted from completed interventional clinical trials from ClinicalTrial.gov registry and its Archive site. Trials were registered under "Behaviours and Mental Disorders" category, and conducted on underage participants (0-17 years). Their primary outcomes were compared to those published in publication which had a corresponding NCT number stated in the text. Sixteen percent of trials did not have the minimum information on primary outcome stated in the registry-neither the measure used nor the measurement time points; 38.9% of trials had the minimum information stated to describe primary outcome, while only 3.3% of trials had all the necessary elements stated in the registry. Most of the publication in our sample had positive results (66.4%). Half of the trials registered before completion had non-matching primary outcomes in the registry and publication; 85.4% of trials with non-matching outcomes indicated possible outcome reporting bias for some of the primary outcome. Middle-sized trials and industry-funded trials were related with higher quality of primary outcome registration. Industry funding was related with positive findings in publication. Non-industry funding proved to be the only significant predictor of discrepancy between registered and published primary outcomes, and possible outcome reporting bias. Journal impact factor was not related with any of the outcome measures. The main limitation of the study is that it primarily offers an insight into discrepancy of registered and published outcomes. The methodology does not imply an access to results of unpublished outcomes - therefore, it was not possible to determine the presence of the bias with sufficient certainty in large number of trials. Further research should be done with improved methodology and additional data.

Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers

Scholars in science and technology studies and bibliometricians are increasingly revealing the performative nature of bibliometric indicators. Far from being neutral technical measures, indicators such as the Impact Factor and the h-index are deeply transforming the social and epistemic structures of contemporary science. At the same time, scholars have highlighted how bibliometric indicators are endowed with social meanings that go beyond their purely technical definitions. These social representations of bibliometric indicators are constructed and negotiated between different groups of actors within several arenas. This study aims to investigate how bibliometric indicators are used in a context, which, so far, has not yet been covered by researchers, that of daily newspapers. By a content analysis of a corpus of 583 articles that appeared in four major Italian newspapers between 1990 and 2020, we chronicle the main functions that bibliometrics and bibliometric indicators played in the Italian press. Our material shows, among other things, that the public discourse developed in newspapers creates a favorable environment for bibliometrics-centered science policies, that bibliometric indicators contribute to the social construction of scientific facts in the press, especially in science news related to medicine, and that professional bibliometric expertise struggles to be represented in newspapers and hence reach the general public.

Selecting the appropriate leading journal in Hospitality and Tourism research: a guide based on the topic-journal fit and the JCR impact factor

Selecting the appropriate academic journal is a priority issue for researchers in the process of publishing a manuscript. If researchers could quantify the research topic in terms of its fit with the journal requirements before the submission of a paper, then the assessment of journal suitability could be much easier. Basing any decision on journal impact factors alone might obviously result in a mismatch, eventual rejection and a consequent loss of time. Taking the twelve leading Tourism and Hospitality journals as a reference, the main research topics mentioned in the abstracts of 20,381 articles are identified, using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm and other text-mining techniques running the R programming language. Subsequently, a quantitative measure of the fit of the research topics in each journal is offered according to their frequency of occurrence. The results suggested that the importance of the topic-journal fit with respect to the impact factor depended on the variance of the fits among the journals. Finally, a guide of the most suitable journals for the topics is presented, based on the JCR impact factor and the fit of the topic. Some recommendations are likewise offered on the use of this methodology and its limitations.

Impact and visibility of Norwegian, Finnish and Spanish journals in the fields of humanities

This article analyses the impact and visibility of scholarly journals in the humanities that are publishing in the national languages in Finland, Norway and Spain. Three types of publishers are considered: commercial publishers, scholarly society as publisher, and research organizations as publishers. Indicators of visibility and impact were obtained from Web of Science, SCOPUS, Google Metrics, Scimago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report. The findings compiled show that in Spain the categories “History and Archaeology” and “Language and Literature” account for almost 70% of the journals analysed, while the other countries offer a more homogeneous distribution. In Finland, the scholarly society publisher is predominant, in Spain, research organization as publishers, mostly universities, have a greater weighting, while in Norway, the commercial publishers take centre stage. The results show that journals from Finland and Norway will have reduced possibilities in terms of impact and visibility, since the vernacular language appeals to a smaller readership. Conversely, the Spanish journals are more attractive for indexing in commercial databases. Distribution in open access ranges from 64 to 70% in Norwegian and Finish journals, and to 91% in Spanish journals. The existence of DOI range from 31 to 41% in Nordic journals to 60% in Spanish journals and has a more widespread bearing on the citations received in all three countries (journals with DOI and open access are cited more frequently).

Influential literatures in periprosthetic infection following joint arthroplasty: A bibliometric review

The objective of this bibliometric literature review was to identify and analyze the most frequently cited manuscripts on the topic of periprosthetic joint infection. Periprosthetic infection following joint arthroplasty is a complication leading to rising rates of mortality and increasing economic strain. No prior study has evaluated the most impactful literature on the topic of periprosthetic joint infection (“PJI”) in total hip and knee arthroplasty. Knowledge and appreciation of the most influential publications on this topic can guide and inspire future research endeavors. Using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database, the 50 most cited articles related to periprosthetic infection following joint arthroplasty were identified. Numerous metrics including citation frequency, year of publication, country of origin, level-of-evidence (LOE), article type, and contributing authors/institutions were recorded. The seven most cited articles (per year) during the past 10 years were also identified. The years of publications of the articles included in the final analysis ranged from 1969 to 2014. “Current concepts: Prosthetic-joint infections” by Zimmerli et al. was the most frequently cited article. Level of Evidence (“LOE”) of 2 and 3 were the most common. Clinical outcomes was the most common article type. Mayo Clinic and Thomas Jefferson University produced the most publications. Hanssen and Parvisi were the most productive authors. 2000–2009 ( n = 25) was the most prolific decade in terms of number of publications. Using citation analysis as an indication of influence, the most influential articles on periprosthetic joint infection were highlighted. Analysis of the most recognized publication on PJI provides an enhanced understanding of the diagnosis, treatment, and future research of PJI. Future studies may combine the search results of multiple databases including Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed to rectify any discrepancies in citation data and to capture additional literature on PJI.

Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges

Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.

Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?

Taxonomy is essential to biological sciences and the priority field in face of the biodiversity crisis. The industry of scientific publications has made extensive promotion and display of bibliometric indexes, resulting in side effects such as the Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF) mania. Inadequacies of the widely used indexes to assess taxonomic publications are among the impediments for the progress of this field. Based on an unusually high proportion of self-citations, the mega-journal Zootaxa, focused on zoological taxonomy, was suppressed from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR, Clarivate™). A prompt reaction from the scientific community against this decision took place exposing myths and misuses of bibliometrics. Our goal is to shed light on the impact of misuse of bibliometrics to the production in taxonomy. We explored JCR's metrics for 2010-2018 of 123 zoological journals publishing taxonomic studies. Zootaxa, with around 15 000 citations, received 311% more citations than the second most cited journal, and shows higher levels of self-citations than similar journals. We consider Zootaxa's scope and the fact that it is a mega-journal are insufficient to explain its high level of self-citation. Instead, this result is related to the 'Zootaxa phenomenon', a sociological bias that includes visibility and potentially harmful misconceptions that portray the journal as the only one that publishes taxonomic studies. Menaces to taxonomy come from many sources and the low bibliometric indexes, including JIF, are only one factor among a range of threats. Instead of being focused on statistically illiterate journal metrics endorsing the villainy of policies imposed by profit-motivated companies, taxonomists should be engaged with renewed strength in actions directly connected to the promotion and practice of this science without regard for citation analysis.

The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods

The reproducibility crisis is a multifaceted problem involving ingrained practices within the scientific community. Fortunately, some causes are addressed by the author's adherence to rigor and reproducibility criteria, implemented via checklists at various journals. We developed an automated tool (SciScore) that evaluates research articles based on their adherence to key rigor criteria, including NIH criteria and RRIDs, at an unprecedented scale. We show that despite steady improvements, less than half of the scoring criteria, such as blinding or power analysis, are routinely addressed by authors; digging deeper, we examined the influence of specific checklists on average scores. The average score for a journal in a given year was named the Rigor and Transparency Index (RTI), a new journal quality metric. We compared the RTI with the Journal Impact Factor and found there was no correlation. The RTI can potentially serve as a proxy for methodological quality.

Trends in Microbiology publications: are classic scientific journals condemned to extinction?

Scientific journals have played an essential role in the diffusion of research breakthroughs. For many years there was no competition between journals, but, in recent decades they have become categorized by a careful assessment of their published contents based on several metric parameters. Of greater note, the 'prestige index' has become an essential tool used by public and private institutions to develop their scientific policy. Thus, the evaluation of research staffs, the concession of grants or fellowships and even the scholarly reputation and academic positions are mainly founded on a given journal's 'quality'. As a consequence, the prestige of some journals has gone up, based on the assumption that they publish cutting-edge science, while the reputation of others has gone down. Within the field of Microbiology, we have carried out a direct analysis by monitoring several representative classic journals according to customary metric parameters over 20 years. This analysis also covers another set of journals of recent appearance (novel journals). Although a direct comparison between both groups is not possible, this approach serves to perceive the trends of publication among microbiologists. Our preliminary conclusion is that the continued existence of many so-termed classic journals devoted to Microbiology is seriously threatened.

A Provisional System to Evaluate Journal Publishers Based on Partnership Practices and Values Shared with Academic Institutions and Libraries

Background: Journals with high impact factors (IFs) are the “coin of the realm” in many review, tenure, and promotion decisions, ipso facto, IFs influence academic authors’ views of journals and publishers. However, IFs do not evaluate how publishers interact with libraries or academic institutions. Goal: This provisional system introduces an evaluation of publishers exclusive of IF, measuring how well a publisher’s practices align with the values of libraries and public institutions of higher education (HE). Identifying publishers with similar values may help libraries and institutions make strategic decisions about resource allocation. Methods: Democratization of knowledge, information exchange, and the sustainability of scholarship were values identified to define partnership practices and develop a scoring system evaluating publishers. Then, four publishers were evaluated. A high score indicates alignment with the values of libraries and academic institutions and a strong partnership with HE. Results: Highest scores were earned by a learned society publishing two journals and a library publisher supporting over 80 open-access journals. Conclusions: Publishers, especially nonprofit publishers, could use the criteria to guide practices that align with mission-driven institutions. Institutions and libraries could use the system to identify publishers acting in good faith towards public institutions of HE.

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. In fact, our computer simulations demonstrate the possibility that the impact factor is a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations the article has received. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

[Scientific impact and bibliometric contextualisation of Paediatrics compared to other specialities]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, to identify and characterise the production, citation, impact and collaboration indicators of the Pediatrics area of the Journal Citation Reports, and on the other hand, to place the journal Anales de Pediatría in the context of the Spanish journals of another twenty areas and medical specialties.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The sources of information used to obtain the indicators were Science Citation Index-Expanded, Journal Citation Reports, and Scimago Journal & Country Rank. A regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation between the citation and other variables.

RESULTS

Pediatrics ranked 8th in scientific production during the period 2009-2018. In citations per journal it ranks 17th, and the average citations per article approaches 27, occupying, in this case, the 18th position. Below Pediatrics are Emergency Medicine, Rehabilitation, and Primary Health Care. There are no citations for 12.47% of the articles. The average impact factor places the area in 18th place and its h index was 197, reaching 14th position, and standing above seven other areas. The percentage of works carried out with international collaboration was 17.71%, above Primary Health Care (12.88%), Oncology (16.37%), and Emergency Medicine (17.03%). Among the Spanish journals, Anales de Pediatría was the fourth most productive journal, and occupied an intermediate position in terms of the number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

The indicators of citation and impact of the Pediatrics area tend to be above areas such as Emergency Medicine, Primary Health Care, Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine, and Rehabilitation. Professional practice outside large hospitals, together with poor funding, as well as the low number of clinical trials due to the ethical requirements imposed on studies with children, may be the causes that result in moderate citation and impact indicators.

The pricing of open access journals: Diverse niches and sources of value in academic publishing

Open access (OA) publishing has created new academic and economic niches in contemporary science. OA journals offer numerous publication outlets with varying editorial philosophies and business models. This article analyzes the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ( n = 12,127) to identify characteristics of OA academic journals related to the adoption of article processing charge (APC)-based business models, as well as the price points of journals that charge APCs. Journal impact factor (JIF), language, publisher mission, DOAJ Seal, economic and geographic regions of publishers, peer review duration, and journal discipline are all significantly related to the adoption and pricing of journal APCs. Even after accounting for other journal characteristics (prestige, discipline, publisher country), journals published by for-profit publishers charge the highest APCs. Journals with status endowments (JIF, DOAJ Seal) and articles written in English, published in wealthier regions, and in medical or science-based disciplines are also relatively costlier. The OA publishing market reveals insights into forces that create economic and academic value in contemporary science. Political and institutional inequalities manifest in the varying niches occupied by different OA journals and publishers.

Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers

We examined the long-term impact of coauthorship with established, highly-cited scientists on the careers of junior researchers in four scientific disciplines. Here, using matched pair analysis, we find that junior researchers who coauthor work with top scientists enjoy a persistent competitive advantage throughout the rest of their careers, compared to peers with similar early career profiles but without top coauthors. Such early coauthorship predicts a higher probability of repeatedly coauthoring work with top-cited scientists, and, ultimately, a higher probability of becoming one. Junior researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions show the most benefits from coauthorship with a top scientist. As a consequence, we argue that such institutions may hold vast amounts of untapped potential, which may be realised by improving access to top scientists.

By examining publication records of scientists from four disciplines, the authors show that coauthoring a paper with a top-cited scientist early in one's career predicts lasting increases in career success, especially for researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions.

Research Impact Core: A Research Impact Initiative at the University of Michigan

Informationists at the Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, formed a research impact consultation and education initiative in early 2017 to increase engagement with the health sciences community around the informed, responsible use of a range of citation and alternative metrics and associated tools. So far, the Research Impact Core has primarily entailed developing training content and cultivating partnerships related to publication metrics and associated best practices. This article reports on progress from the first two years of the Research Impact Core, including a snapshot of information session registrants, and a broader discussion of collaborative partnerships around research impact in the health sciences and library system.

Eugene Garfield’s Ideas and Legacy and Their Impact on the Culture of Research

Eugene Garfield advanced the theory and practice of information science and envisioned information systems that made the discovery of scientific information much more efficient. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which he founded in Philadelphia in 1960, developed innovative information products that have revolutionized science. ISI provided current scientific information to researchers all over the world by publishing the table of contents of key scientific journals in the journal Current Contents (CC). Garfield introduced the citation as a qualitative measure of academic impact and propelled the concepts of “citation indexing” and “citation linking”, paving the way for today’s search engines. He created the Science Citation Index (SCI), which raised awareness about citations; triggered the development of new disciplines (scientometrics, infometrics, webometrics); and became the foundation for building new important products such as Web of Science. The journal impact factor (IF), originally designed to select journals for the SCI, became the most widely accepted tool for measuring academic impact. Garfield actively promoted English as the international language of science and became a powerful force in the globalization of research. His ideas changed how researchers gather scientific information, communicate their findings, and advance their careers. This article looks at the impact of Garfield’s ideas and legacy on the culture of research.

The impact factor: implications for research policy, editorial rules and scholarly reputation

The assessment of scientific research is essentially based on several metric parameters, the so-termed Impact Factor perhaps being the predominant one. Despite well-founded criticisms and the wide opposition of reputed scientists, this procedure has become a tool of scientific policy, and is applied in editorial procedures for scientific publication, the evaluation of research groups, the concession of grants, fellowships or even academic positions. Indeed, cutting-edge research is today a competitive and exigent task, where the legitimacy and restrictions of such metric factors remain a preoccupation. However, whatever the policy of evaluation implemented, most breakthroughs are revolutionary, and involve a change in a given paradigm, usually being made by unorthodox scientists, whose scholarly reputation may be questioned by the establishment, and who may often be excluded as a result of the current system of highly productive research.

How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

Much of the work done by faculty at both public and private universities has significant public dimensions: it is often paid for by public funds; it is often aimed at serving the public good; and it is often subject to public evaluation. To understand how the public dimensions of faculty work are valued, we analyzed review, promotion, and tenure documents from a representative sample of 129 universities in the US and Canada. Terms and concepts related to public and community are mentioned in a large portion of documents, but mostly in ways that relate to service, which is an undervalued aspect of academic careers. Moreover, the documents make significant mention of traditional research outputs and citation-based metrics: however, such outputs and metrics reward faculty work targeted to academics, and often disregard the public dimensions. Institutions that seek to embody their public mission could therefore work towards changing how faculty work is assessed and incentivized.

How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

Much of the work done by faculty at both public and private universities has significant public dimensions: it is often paid for by public funds; it is often aimed at serving the public good; and it is often subject to public evaluation. To understand how the public dimensions of faculty work are valued, we analyzed review, promotion, and tenure documents from a representative sample of 129 universities in the US and Canada. Terms and concepts related to public and community are mentioned in a large portion of documents, but mostly in ways that relate to service, which is an undervalued aspect of academic careers. Moreover, the documents make significant mention of traditional research outputs and citation-based metrics: however, such outputs and metrics reward faculty work targeted to academics, and often disregard the public dimensions. Institutions that seek to embody their public mission could therefore work towards changing how faculty work is assessed and incentivized.

Influence of selected factors in journals’ citations

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of selected factors in journal citations. Various factors can affect citations distribution of journals. Among them, skewness of citations distribution, author self-citation, journal self-citation and recitations (RCs) have been studied.

Design/methodology/approach

The present study based on 16 systematically selected journals indexed in Scopus under the subject category “Library and Information Science.” The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in the selected journals in the year 2011. The temporal citation window from 2011 to 2014 was taken for analysis. Tools like, Scopus author ID, ORCID and author profiles from Google Scholar were used to minimize the error due to homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names.

Findings

It is found that citations distribution in majority of the journals under the study is highly skewed and more likely to follow log-normal distribution. The nature of authorship in papers was found to have positive effect on citation counts. Self-citing data show that higher ranked journals have rather less direct impact on total citation counts than their lower counterpart. RCs are also found to be more in top-tier journals. Though the influence of self-citations and RCs were relatively less at individual level on total citations of journals but combined, they can play a dominant role and can affect total citation counts of journals at significant level.

Research limitations/implications

The present study is based on Scopus database only. Therefore, citation data can be affected by the inherent limitation of Scopus. Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample and tracing citations from an array of citation indexes, such as Web of Science, Google citations, Indian Citation Index, etc.

Originality/value

This paper reinforces that the citations received by journals can be affected by the factors selected in this study. Therefore, the study provides better understanding of the role of these selected factors in journal citations.

Panorama da produção científi ca do Brasil além da indexação: uma análise exploratória da comunicação em periódicos

Resumo Indicadores de produção científica são usualmente utilizados para a avaliação da comunidade acadêmica. Como parâmetro de qualidade, as bases de dados bibliográficas são empregadas para a seleção dos periódicos mais importantes, o que as confere um papel significativo no processo avaliativo. Por outro lado, ao se restringir as análises à produção indexada, abre-se mão do todo, correndo-se o risco de desqualificar a produção em periódicos não indexados. O Qualis busca contornar esse problema, ao possibilitar que as áreas valorizem os periódicos não indexados, mas nem sempre consideram o volume de artigos publicados neles. Este trabalho apresenta uma análise exploratória da dispersão da produção científica dos 260.663 pesquisadores, no nível de doutorado, registrados na Plataforma Lattes. Para a determinação do panorama nacional, foram considerados todos os artigos completos publicados em periódicos por esses pesquisadores entre os anos de 1998 e 2016. Esse panorama contempla análises discriminadas por grande área de atuação dos pesquisadores, o país de publicação e a indexação das publicações nos diferentes periódicos. Observaram-se tendências de internacionalização, assim como a importância de periódicos nacionais como veículos de publicação de parte significativa da produção científica de algumas áreas. Finalmente, ficou evidenciada a potencial limitação de estudos que não considerem a produção científica em periódicos não indexados, ou estudos restritos às bases Scopus e/ou Web of Science, ignorando a Scientific Electronic Library Online.