Perception of the importance of chemistry research papers and comparison to citation rates

A memory-theoretic account of citation propagation

Despite the common assumption that citations are indicative of an article's scientific merit, increasing evidence indicates that citation counts are largely driven by variables unrelated to quality. In this article, we treat people's decisions of what to cite as an instance of memory retrieval and show that observed citation patterns are well accounted for by a model of memory. The proposed exposure model anticipates that small alterations in factors that affect people's ability to retrieve to-be-cited articles from memory early in their life cycle are magnified over time and can lead to the emergence of highly cited papers. This effect occurs even when there is no variation in the starting point exposure probabilities (i.e. when assuming a level playing field where all articles are treated equally and of equal 'quality'), and is exacerbated by natural variation in retrievability of articles due to encoding. We discuss the implications of the model within the context of research evaluation and hiring, tenure and promotion decisions.

The Influence of International Collaboration on the Scientific Impact in V4 Countries

Several strategies are used by researchers and research facilities to increase their scientific production and consequent research quality. Bibliometric records show that coauthorship and the number of participating organizations in research publications are steadily increasing; however, the effect of collaboration varies across disciplines, and the corresponding author’s country appears to influence research impact. This finding inspired our research question for this study: How does international cooperation affect scientific impact, and does the affiliation of corresponding authors influence citation impact indicators at the level of individual publications? To this end, we provide a comparative evaluation of research articles published in Q1 journals among Visegrad Group countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) in Medical and Health sciences between 2017 and 2021. The study investigates the relationship between collaboration type (national vs. international) and scientific impact (impact factor of the journal and category normalized citation impact or research papers), as well as the impact of the country of the corresponding author’s affiliation on quantitative quality of individual papers. We show that Q1 research papers in international collaboration have a higher scientific impact than papers published in national partnerships. Moreover, the corresponding authors’ country of affiliation significantly affects scientific impact.

What is there in the scoring and rating of journals?

Medical and associated speciality journals aim to disseminate area-specific knowledge, discoveries, experiences, cases and substantiate or negate the previously published pieces of information. These Journals are considered essential for doctors, researchers, and scientists to disseminate work, research, and experiences with the rest of the world. However, it is often quite challenging to choose an appropriate journal to submit work for possible publication. Researchers attempt to choose the most appropriate platform to highlight their research work so that their work gets published in good order, read, and referred. Hence, selecting an appropriate journal is the most vital task for them. Although no ranking and scoring system can be 100% perfect and foolproof, yet the scoring systems are required to be fair and objective in scoring the journals on various metrics and parameters.

Scholarly reputation

The aim of this literature review on scholarly reputation is: (i) to clarify the concept of scholarly reputation; and (ii) to identify the opportunities for scholars (and especially the early career ones among them) to build, maintain and showcase their reputation in today's increasingly open-values based, digital and networked environment. Thus, an in-depth discussion of the notion of scholarly reputation, inclusive of its multi-dimensional sub-constructs and antecedents, is followed by an attempt to establish how it is to be achieved and managed.

Differences and similarities between Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore

Two major journal-based metrics are in competition: the Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. Although these two metrics are based on similar principles of measuring the impact by citations, some differences between them exist. Years used to calculate the metric, access to computing data, and number of journals covered are some of these differences. One of the most relevant differences for pharmacy journals is the recognition in CiteScore of Pharmacy as an independent Subject Area, whereas it appears to have merged with pharmacology in the Journal Citation Reports. The immediate consequence of this differentiation is that pharmacy journals remain in the third and fourth quartiles in the Journal Impact Factor distribution, while a true quartile distribution exists in CiteScore.