View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan
  • 2 Department of Finance, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan
  • 3 Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • 4 Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 5 Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • 6 Department of Economics and Finance, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand
Restricted access

Abstract

The paper is concerned with analysing what makes a great journal great in the sciences, based on quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAM). Alternative RAM are discussed, with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). Various ISI RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or 0-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored—By Even The Authors), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and three new RAM, namely Historical Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (H-STAR), 2 Year Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (2Y-STAR), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). The RAM data are analysed for the 6 most highly cited journals in 20 highly-varied and well-known ISI categories in the sciences, where the journals are chosen on the basis of 2YIF. The application to these 20 ISI categories could be used as a template for other ISI categories in the sciences and social sciences, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of ISI disciplines. In addition to evaluating the 6 most highly cited journals in each of 20 ISI categories, the paper also highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM, finds that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the most highly cited scientific journals, determines that PI-BETA is not highly correlated with the other RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding research performance. In order to provide a meta analysis summary of the RAM, which are predominantly ratios, harmonic mean rankings are presented of the 13 RAM for the 6 most highly cited journals in each of the 20 ISI categories. It is shown that emphasizing THE impact factor, specifically the 2-year impact factor, of a journal to the exclusion of other informative RAM can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence on different disciplines, especially in view of inflated journal self citations.

  • Bergstrom, C 2007 Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. C and RL News 68:314316.

  • Bergstrom, C, West, JD 2008 Assessing citations with Eigenfactor™ metrics. Neurology 71:18501851 .

  • Bergstrom, CT, West, JD, Wiseman, MA 2008 The Eigenfactor™ metrics. Journal of Neuroscience 28 45 1143311434 .

  • Bornmann, L, Daniel, H-D 2009 Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics 3 4 348352 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bornmann, L, Mutz, R, Daniel, H-D 2008 Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 5 830837 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chang, C.-L., McAleer, M., & Oxley, L. (2010). Great expectatrics: Great papers, great journals, great econometrics. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1618167.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elkins, MR, Maher, CG, Herbert, RD, Moseley, AM, Sherrington, C 2010 Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics 85:8193 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fersht, A 2009 The most influential journals: Impact factor and Eigenfactor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 17 68836884 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Garfield, E 1972 Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 4060 471479 .

  • Hirsch, JE 2005 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 46 1656916572 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ISI Web of Science (2010). Journal citation reports, essential science indicators. Thomson Reuters ISI.

  • Kermarrec, A.-M., Faou, E., Merlet, J.-P., Robert, P., & Segoufin, L. (2007). What do bibliometric indicators measure? INRIA Evaluation Committee Analysis Document. http://www.inria.fr/inria/organigramme/documents/ce_indicateurs_en.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neuhaus, C, Marx, W, Daniel, H-D 2009 The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts: A case study on the limitations of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 1 176183 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schubert, A, Glanzel, W 2007 A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics 1 3 179184 .

  • Seglen, PO 1997 Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314 7079 498502.