Citation analysis

The authors investigate the overall and subarea influence of a comprehensive set of marketing and marketing-related journals at three points in time during a 30-year period using a citation-based measure of structural influence. The results show that a few journals wield a disproportionate amount of influence in the marketing journal network as a whole and that influential journals tend to derive their influence from many different journals. Different journals are most influential in different subareas of marketing; general business and managerially oriented journals have lost influence, whereas more specialized marketing journals have gained in influence over time. The Journal of Marketing emerges as the most influential marketing journal in the final period (1996-97) and as the journal with the broadest span of influence across all subareas. Yet the Journal of Marketing is notably influential among applied marketing journals, which themselves are of lesser influence. The index of structural inf...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/30040527

The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time

Metaphorically speaking, citations are frozen footprints in the landscape of scholarly achievement; footprints which bear witness to the passage of ideas. From footprints it is possible to deduce direction; from the configuration and depth of the imprint it should be possible to construct a picture of those who have passed by, whilst the distribution and variety furnish clues as to whether the advance was orderly and purposive. So it is with citations in respect of the growth of human knowledge; they give substantive expression to the process of innovation, and, if properly marshalled, can provide the researcher with a forensic tool of seductive power and versatility.

The need for a theory of citing

A cross-citation matrix with journal titles in the rows and the columns is examined. Journal citation measures are re viewed within the matrix framework. Some limitations of tradi tional indicators such as immediacy index and impact factor are discussed. Time-related and other journal citation measures are also presented. Relations between journal citation mea sures, and objective and subjective ratings of scientific journals are briefly described and commented upon.

Journal citation measures: a concise review

Considerable interest has been shown in problems associated with ranking journals in accord with their relative importance. With the publication of Journal Citation Reports, regularly updated ranking indicators, based on citation analysis, are made readily available. These indicators have been shown to have significant correlations with scientists' evaluations of the relative importance of journals in the biomedical sciences, but not the physical sciences. This article examines the situation in the social sciences, and finds a strong association between sociologists' evaluations of journal rank and particular citation rank indicators. This suggests that Social Science Journal Citation Reports could prove a valuable aid to journal selection for libraries and information systems.

Citation ranking versus subjective evaluation in the determination of journal hierachies in the social sciences

Over several decades many ranking techniques have been proposed as aids to journal selection by libraries. We review those closely related to physics and others with novel features. There are three main methods of ranking: citation analysis, use or user judgement, and size or ‘productivity’. Citations offer an ‘unobtrusive’ quantitative measure, but not only is the absolute value of a citation in question, but also there is no consensus on a ‘correct’ way to choose the citing journals, nor of the ranking parameter. Citations can, however, point out anomalies and show the changing status of journals over the years. Use and user judgement also employ several alternative methods. These are in the main of limited applicability outside the specific user group in question. There is greater ‘parochialism’ in ‘use’ ranking than in ‘judged value’ lists, with citation lists the most international. In some cases, the attempted ‘quantification’ of subjective judgement will be misleading. Size and productivity rankings are normally concerned with one or other formulation of the Bradford distribution. Since the distribution is not universally valid, for library use the librarian must satisfy him/herself that the collection conforms to the distribution, or that his users would be well served by one that did. This may require considerable effort, and statistics gained will then render the Bradford distribution redundant.

Alan Singleton

Papers

Journal ranking and selection: a review in physics