Showing papers on "Citation impact published in 2011"
TL;DR: New citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks are submitted, demonstrating that the proposed family indicators are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
Abstract: We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are—as a rule—highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
223 citations
TL;DR: There was a significant positive correlation between the number of authors and the numberof citations in Harvard publications, whereas publications with more number of foreign collaborators were not much highly cited.
Abstract: This study aims to investigate the influence of different patterns of collaboration on the citation impact of Harvard University's publications. Those documents published by researchers affiliated with Harvard University in WoS from 2000---2009, constituted the population of the research which was counted for 124,937 records. Based on the results, only 12% of Harvard publications were single author publications. Different patterns of collaboration were investigated in different subject fields. In all 22 examined fields, the number of co-authored publications is much higher than single author publications. In fact, more than 60% of all publications in each field are multi-author publications. Also, the normalized citation per paper for co-authored publications is higher than that of single author publications in all fields. In addition, the largest number of publications in all 22 fields were also published through inter-institutional collaboration and were as a result of collaboration among domestic researchers and not international ones. In general, the results of the study showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the number of authors and the number of citations in Harvard publications. In addition, publications with more number of institutions have received more number of citations, whereas publications with more number of foreign collaborators were not much highly cited.
177 citations
TL;DR: I3 is compared with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories (“Information Science & Library Science” and “Multidisciplinary Sciences”), and the library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations.
Abstract: In bibliometrics, the association of “impact” with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories (“Information Science & Library Science” and “Multidisciplinary Sciences”). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
176 citations
TL;DR: Comparing the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations shows that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.
Abstract: Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
156 citations
TL;DR: This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.
Abstract: International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
101 citations
TL;DR: It is found that knowledge production through collaborative research among sub-Saharan African countries is minimal and contributes only a small percentage when compared to collaboration between sub- Saharan African countries and their foreign counterparts.
Abstract: This paper examines co-authorship of research articles in Thomson Reuters citation indexes in order to assess knowledge co-production in selected sub-Saharan African countries. Two indicators, namely publications and citations, were analysed to establish the patterns of knowledge co-production and its scientific impact, respectively. The study found that knowledge production through collaborative research among sub-Saharan African countries is minimal and contributes only a small percentage when compared to collaboration between sub-Saharan African countries and their foreign counterparts. Similarly, the scientific impact of international collaboration was higher than that of continental collaboration. Countries belonging to the same geographic region contributed to each other's knowledge production more frequently than they did to the countries outside their region. It is recommended that, for knowledge co-production in sub-Saharan Africa to improve, various measures such as encouraging student and staff exchange, hosting more regional conferences and encouraging research networks need to be put in place.
95 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a reply to the article ''Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations\", published by Loet Leydesdorff and Tobias Opthof (arXiv:1004.3580v2 [cs.DL]).
Abstract: This paper is a reply to the article \"Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations\", published by Loet Leydesdorff and Tobias Opthof (arXiv:1004.3580v2 [cs.DL]). It clarifies the relationship between SNIP and Elsevier's Scopus. Since Leydesdorff and Opthof's description of SNIP is not complete, it indicates four key differences between SNIP and the indicator proposed by the two authors, and argues why the former is more valid than the latter. Nevertheless, the idea of fractional citation counting deserves further exploration. The paper discusses difficulties that arise if one attempts to apply this principle at the level of individual (citing) papers.
91 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that expert surveys and citation impact journal ranking methods cannot be used as substitutes and should be used instead as complementary approaches.
83 citations
TL;DR: China saw a strong growth in scientific publications in the last decade, to some extent due to increasing research and development expenditure, and internationally collaborative papers differed among fields and international collaborations made positive contributions to academic research in China.
Abstract: To provide an overview of the characteristics of research in China, a bibliometric evaluation of highly cited papers with high-level representation was conducted during the period from 1999 to 2009 based on the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database. A comprehensive assessment covered overall performance, journals, subject categories, internationally collaborative countries, national inter-institutionally collaborative institutions, and most-cited papers in 22 scientific fields. China saw a strong growth in scientific publications in the last decade, to some extent due to increasing research and development expenditure. China has been more active in ESI fields of chemistry and physics, but more excellent in materials science, engineering and mathematics. Most publications were concerned with the common Science Citation Index subject categories of multidisciplinary chemistry, multidisciplinary materials and science, and physical chemistry. About one half China's ESC papers were internationally collaborative and the eight major industrialized countries (the USA, Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada, Russia, and Italy) played a prominent role in scientific collaboration with China, especially the USA. The Chinese Academy of Sciences took the leading position of institutions with many branches. The "985 Project" stimulated the most productive institutions for academic research with a huge funding injection and the universities in Hong Kong showed good scientific performance. The citation impact of internationally collaborative papers differed among fields and international collaborations made positive contributions to academic research in China.
79 citations
TL;DR: A correlation between the two variables is discovered; namely, multiple OA availability of an article has a positive impact on its citation count.
Abstract: This research examines the relationship between multiple open access (OA) availability of journal articles and the citation advantage by collecting data of OA copies and citation numbers in 20 top library and information science journals. We discover a correlation between the two variables; namely, multiple OA availability of an article has a positive impact on its citation count. The statistical analysis reveals that for every increase in the availability of OA articles, citation numbers increase by 2.348.
72 citations
TL;DR: The relationship between the count of a paper's funding sources and its citation impact has been investigated in this paper, showing that understanding the relationship between impact of a publication and its count of funding sources is more complicated than previously believed.
Abstract: Bibliographic databases are now providing systematic funding acknowledgement data for their indexed publications. This paper considers how such new data might be used for policy purposes and some key issues arising. While provision of such comprehensive data is recent, there is already sufficient data in the Web of Science to examine a controversy in research policy in which funding acknowledgement data is involved, namely the relationship between the count of a paper's funding sources and its citation impact. Analyses of publications from 2009 from journals Cell and Physical Review Letters suggests understanding of the relationship between impact of a publication and its count of funding sources is not complete and may be more complicated than previously believed. It is proposed that research findings are packaged by researchers into papers in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes. Individual funding quanta from whatever source are not therefore inputs to papers directly; rather, such funding supports a process that has among its outcomes the production of papers. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
TL;DR: Characteristic scores and scales (CSS) were introduced by GlA¤nzel and Schubert in 1988 as discussed by the authors, which can be applied to analyse the citation impact of any subset of a system in comparison with citation patterns of the complete system.
Abstract: Characteristic scores and scales (CSS) were introduced by GlA¤nzel and Schubert in 1988. CSS can be applied to analyse the citation impact of any subset of a system in comparison with citation patterns of the complete system. In this present study, CSS will be applied to individual subfields as systems and journals and papers as corresponding subunits. CSS are used as parameter-free tools to identify top journals within science fields, to identify highly cited papers within fields and journals and to compare the rank frequency distribution of highly cited papers over journals with the journal ranking according to traditional impact measures. The second part of the study is devoted to the possible normalisation of journal impact. In this study, threshold values of CSS are used to re-scale the journal-impact distributions. The underlying methodology and the outcomes for different subfields representing the life sciences, engineering and mathematics are discussed.
TL;DR: The empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used and has a strong tendency to reinforce biases caused by the classification scheme.
Abstract: Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in PageRank-inspired indicators). We combine these two ideas in a single indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, and we study the validity of this indicator. Our empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used. The indicator also has a strong tendency to reinforce biases caused by the classification scheme. Based on these observations, we advise against the use of indicators in which the idea of normalization based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing are combined.
TL;DR: A study of the Spanish academic system reveals that assessment of a university's research performance must take into account the disciplinary breadth of its publication activity and citation impact, and proposes the use of graphs showing not only a university’s article production and Citation impact, but also its disciplinary specialization.
Abstract: A bibliometric analysis of the 50 most frequently publishing Spanish universities shows large differences in the publication activity and citation impact among research disciplines within an institution. Gini Index is a useful measure of an institution's disciplinary specialization and can roughly categorize universities in terms of general versus specialized. A study of the Spanish academic system reveals that assessment of a university's research performance must take into account the disciplinary breadth of its publication activity and citation impact. It proposes the use of graphs showing not only a university's article production and citation impact, but also its disciplinary specialization. Such graphs constitute both a warning and a remedy against one-dimensional approaches to the assessment of institutional research performance.
TL;DR: It is shown that both approaches to the normalisation of citation-impact measures provide indicators that are useful tools for the comparative assessment of journal citation impact.
Abstract: Two paradigmatic approaches to the normalisation of citation-impact measures are discussed. The results of the mathematical manipulation of standard indicators such as citation means, notably journal Impact Factors, (called a posteriori normalisation) are compared with citation measures obtained from fractional citation counting (called a priori normalisation). The distributions of two subfields of the life sciences and mathematics are chosen for the analysis. It is shown that both methods provide indicators that are useful tools for the comparative assessment of journal citation impact.
TL;DR: Using the number of publications and their citation impact extracted from Scopus as proxies of research activity and research performance, respectively, the distribution of published research articles among universities is examined at a national level and institutional level.
TL;DR: The results show that the choice of normalization baseline matters, and that people without access to subject category data can perform reasonable normalized citation impact studies by combining normalization against journal withnormalization against Essential Science Indicators field.
TL;DR: The similarities of and differences between usage and citation indicators for pharmacy and pharmacology journals are investigated and a close relation between citation and download frequencies is revealed.
Abstract: Following the transition from print journals to electronic (hybrid) journals in the past decade, usage metrics have become an interesting complement to citation metrics. In this article we investigate the similarities of and differences between usage and citation indicators for pharmacy and pharmacology journals and relate the results to a previous study on oncology journals. For the comparison at journal level we use the classical citation indicators as defined in the Journal Citation Reports and compute the corresponding usage indicators. At the article level we not only relate download and citation counts to each other but also try to identify the possible effect of citations upon subsequent downloads. Usage data were provided by ScienceDirect both at the journal level and, for a few selected journals, on a paper‐by‐paper basis. The corresponding citation data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Our analyses show that electronic journals have become generally accepted over the last decade. While the supply of ScienceDirect pharma journals rose by 50% between 2001 and 2006, the total number of article downloads (full‐text articles [FTAs]) multiplied more than 5‐fold in the same period. This also impacted the pattern of scholarly communication (strong increase in the immediacy index) in the past few years. Our results further reveal a close relation between citation and download frequencies. We computed a high correlation at the journal level when using absolute values and a moderate to high correlation when relating usage and citation impact factors. At the article level the rank correlation between downloads and citations was only medium‐sized. Differences between downloads and citations exist in terms of obsolescence characteristics. While more than half of the articles are downloaded in the publication year or 1 year later, the median cited half‐life was nearly 6 years for our journal sample. Our attempt to reveal a direct influence of citations upon downloads proved not to be feasible. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), which is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes.
Abstract: In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high‐impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the “best” scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the “best” manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
TL;DR: The research output of India in computer science during 1999–2008 is analyzed on several parameters including total research output, its growth, rank and global publication share, citation impact, share of international collaborative papers and major collaborative partner countries and patterns of research communication in most productive journals.
Abstract: The research output of India in computer science during 1999---2008 is analyzed in this paper on several parameters including total research output, its growth, rank and global publication share, citation impact, share of international collaborative papers and major collaborative partner countries and patterns of research communication in most productive journals. It also analyses the characteristics of most productive institutions, authors and high-cited papers. The publications output and impact of India is also compared with China, South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil.
TL;DR: It is found that international co-authorship in the CAM field has increased rapidly during this period, and internationally collaborated publications generate higher citation impact than papers published by authors from single country.
Abstract: This study applies bibliometric analysis to investigate the quantity and citation impact of scientific papers in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The data are collected from 19 CAM journals in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database during 1980---2009, and 17,002 papers are identified for analysis. The study analyzes the document types, geographical and institutional distribution of the authorship, including international scientific collaboration. This study suggests that the major type of document is original article. The CAM papers are mostly published by North America, East Asia, and European countries, of which publications authored in East Asia are cited most. Country-wise, major contributors of CAM papers are from USA, People's Republic of China, India, England and Germany. India has the highest CPP value, attracting high attentions in CAM community. This article also finds that international co-authorship in the CAM field has increased rapidly during this period. In addition, internationally collaborated publications generate higher citation impact than papers published by authors from single country. Finally, the research identifies productive institutions in CAM, and China Medical University located in Taiwan is the most productive organization.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyzed the Italian contribution to the world scientific production, its relative citation impact, its international collaborations and scientific productivity compared with the most productive EU countries over the period 1980-2009.
TL;DR: The study focuses on publication activity, citation impact and citation links between publications and patents in biotechnology, and finds that patent-cited papers perform distinctly better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this direction.
Abstract: The study focuses on publication activity, citation impact and citation links between publications and patents in biotechnology. The European Union (EU), US, Japan and China are the most important global players. However, the landscape is changing since the EU and the US are losing ground because of challenges from a group of emerging economies. National profiles differ between the two groups of main players and upcoming countries; the focus on red biotechnology in the US and Europe is contrasted by propensity for white and green technology in Asia. Furthermore, the subject profile of biotechnology papers citing patents and cited by patents as well as the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in scientific literature is explored. Papers that cite patents tend to reflect propensity towards white biotechnology while patent-cited publications have a higher relative share in red biotechnology. No significant difference concerning the citation impact of publications `citing patents' and `not citing patents' can be found. This is contrasted by the observation that patent-cited papers perform distinctly better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this direction.
TL;DR: The present study focuses on the role of EU and other developed nations as a partner of these countries and the analysis of the performance of collaborative research as reflected by the citation impact of internationally co-authored publications.
Abstract: In the last two decades international collaboration in the Eastern European academic communities has strongly intensified. Scientists from developed countries within the European Union play a key role in stimulating the international collaboration of academics in this region. In addition, many of the research projects that engage East-European scholars are only possible in the framework of the large European programmes. The present study focuses on the role of EU and other developed nations as a partner of these countries and the analysis of the performance of collaborative research as reflected by the citation impact of internationally co-authored publications.
DOI•
01 Jun 2011TL;DR: The authors analyzed the citation impact of seven top LIS journals over a period of 29 years and found that domestic collaboration was the dominant type of authorship pattern, while papers from authors outside the established nations are likely to be cited less often.
Abstract: Journal publication is a core avenue for sharing research in the LIS field. Effective scholarly communication is beneficial to the growth of a discipline. Bibliometrics research shows that articles in prestigious international journals are predominantly those of authors based in a few nations, however. Papers from authors outside the established nations are likely to be cited less often. This study analysed the longitudinal changes in geographical patterns of authorship, collaboration types, and factors affecting the citation impact of seven top LIS journals over a period of 29 years. In addition to data from all nations, this paper includes specific findings relating to Asian countries. Analysis of 8,140 papers shows that the internationalisation level in the sample set has increased in terms of number of nations represented and in a decreasing Gini coefficient. The presence of Asian nations such as Taiwan and Singapore as top contributing countries is particularly notable in the past 10 years. Domestic collaboration is found to be the dominant type of authorship pattern. In terms of citation impact as measured by citation counts, logistic regression was used to test the effects of author continent, country income level, collaboration type, publication year, and number of authors. Papers from lower-income countries or from Asian or European authors are found less likely to be 'more cited.' International and domestic collaboration had a positive relation with citation counts. A practical implication is that authors may consider international collaboration as a way to increase the visibility and impact of their research. Nevertheless, the reasons behind such differential citation impact require more exploration. Invisible colleges, the strengths of weak ties, and the geographic scope of a paper are some factors to be further examined. It is hoped that more research can help identify and overcome barriers in scholarly communication so as to achieve a genuine internationalisation of science.
TL;DR: The study investigated 80,300 Iranian publications published from 2000 to 2009 in SCI‐EXPANDED to discover the percentage of funded publications and to determine the citation impact of these publications in comparison with unfunded ones.
Abstract: Purpose – This paper's aim is to examine the citation impact of Iranian funded research publications and compare it with research which received no funding.Design/methodology/approach – Using a bibliometric method, the study investigated 80,300 Iranian publications published from 2000 to 2009 in SCI‐EXPANDED to discover the percentage of funded publications and to determine the citation impact of these publications in comparison with unfunded ones.Findings – The results of the study showed that around 12.5 per cent of Iranian publications were funded and the number of funded publications has increased dramatically over the last four years. The citation impact of funded publications was higher in almost all of the subject fields. The highest number of funded publications belonged to the universities subordinate to The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology.Originality/value – The impact and quality of research is influenced by different factors, for instance receiving funding and research facilities....
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyzed the India research output in diabetes during 1999-2008 on several parameters including its growth, rank and global publications share, citation impact, overall share of international collaborative papers, and share of major collaborative partners.
Abstract: This study analyses the India research output in diabetes during 1999-2008 on several parameters including its growth, rank and global publications share, citation impact, overall share of international collaborative papers, and share of major collaborative partners. It also analyses the characteristics of most productive institutions, authors, and highly-cited papers. The publications output, impact and collaborative publication share of India is also compared with China, South Korea and Brazil. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.2.866
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on international collaboration in the field of nanobiopharmaceuticals involving China and use small world quotient to find that it is important for Chinese international coauthors to strengthen to cultivate a cooperation networks in which a node's partners are also buddies to each other.
Abstract: Nanobiopharmaceuticals is a hopeful research domain from recent scientific advances with massive marketable potential. Although some researchers have studied international collaboration from some aspects, few articles are as comprehensive as this article to consider international cooperation from so many different aspects. We lay more emphasis on international collaboration in the field of nanobiopharmaceuticals involving China. Incremental citation impact values show that in order to move forward and improve the overall competitiveness in the field, China requires to carry out more international collaboration in the field, especially with USA, Germany, and England. Startlingly, multinational collaboration does not sway Chinese citation impact as much as we anticipate in the field. China has reached the first rank in the world in terms of publication amount per year in the field in 2009. Few papers about international collaboration compare small world phenomenon. We use small world quotient to find that it is important for Chinese international co-authors to strengthen to cultivate a cooperation networks in which a node's partners are also buddies to each other.
TL;DR: It is indicated that both journal articles and book output need to be included in bibliometric evaluation in modern language and linguistics research, especially when a five-year citation window is used.
Abstract: A bibliometric evaluation was made of research performance in modern language and linguistics research. Separate analyses were made for language and linguistics and for literature components of each language in the study. The study covered both publications directed at a national or international scholarly output and publications destined for the general public. The latter accounted for 8–73% of the output, and were particularly important in literature output. Publication and citation behavior differed considerably between language and linguistics on the one hand and literature on the other hand, calling for a tailored design of monitoring studies in both fields. In publications directed at scholars, the national language did not dominate. In literature fields, the language of the object of study was most important, while in language and linguistics, the object language was not always more important than English. The study indicates that both journal articles and book output need to be included in bibliometric evaluation. Citation impact analysis is shown to be informative in bibliometric assessment in this field, especially when a five-year citation window is used. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
TL;DR: Comparing and comment on different bibliometric indicators related to some leading journals in rehabilitation, in order to provide further insights regarding their practical usefulness for Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine.
Abstract: Background and objective: the concept of the “standing” of scientific journals (in terms of influence, prestige, popular ity, etc.) is multi-dimensional and cannot be captured adequately by a single indicator. The aim of this report is to compare and comment on different bibliometric indicators related to some leading journals in rehabilitation, in order to provide further insights regarding their practical usefulness for Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Discussion: The commonly used Journal Impact Factor and the new SCImago Journal Rank indicator are measures of average “impact per paper”. Other new measures show potentially useful complementarities with them and warrant further attention. For example, the Eigenfactor score represents a measure of total “citation impact” and seems sufficiently to express the “importance” of a journal. In fact, the information conveyed by the Eigenfactor score corresponds to a general consensus of journal status in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, as expressed by the European Consensus Committee on “International Rehabilitation Journals” and captured by a survey among European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine researchers.