Search Results
Abstract
A fair assessment of merit is needed for better resource allocation in the scientific community. We analyzed the performance of the institutional h-index in the case of Brazilian Psychiatry Post-graduation Programs. Traditional bibliometric indicators and the institutional h-index similarly ranked the programs, except for the Average Impact Factor. The institutional h-index correlated strongly with the majority of the traditional bibliometric indicators, which did not occur with the Average Impact Factor. The institutional h-index balances “quantity” and “quality”, and can be used as part of a panel of bibliometric indicators to aid the peer-review process.
Abstract
A model experiment is presented for thequantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators used in evaluating the scientific impact of papers. The Relative Subfield Citedness (Rw) indicator proved to be the most appropriate according to the criteria chosen. RW increases with the number of citations to the papers and, in contrast to other relative impact indicators, does not decrease if an author chooses to publish most of his papers in journals with large impact factors or if most of the citations to his papers are to the ones in journals with the largest impact factors.
Abstract
Differences in size, mean number of references per paper in journals, ageing of information and disciplinarity of some subfields in chemistry were studied in order to explain different average impact factors for journals. A new indicator —Standard Journal Impact — is suggested, which may be used as a standardized (i.e. comparable) impact indicator for journals in different subfields. The main reason for the lower impact factor for journals of the macromolecular chemistry subfield may be the lower extent of the application of their results by other subfields.
Abstract
To identify the differences in the knowledge production between disciplines, we analyzed the relation between the average paper length and impact factor of 100 journals from 5 disciplines. We found negative correlation between the average length and the impact factor in the natural sciences, but not in the social sciences. We also analyzed the structures of paper and the citation patterns. These analyses are expanded to the comparison between Mode 1 and Mode 2. All results showed the natural sciences articles could emphasize the differences from previous studies and be diffused effectively by the short standardized style of paper.
Abstract
The impact factor and the journal self-citation rate of 22 newly launched chemistry journals has been investigated. The dependence of these indicators on the journal's age was found to be rather characteristic to the initial period of a journal's 
life cycle
.
Abstract
The internationalization of ten of China’s English-language scientific journals is analyzed based on their Impact Factor, Total Citation, JCR list rank, international paper proportion and international citation proportion. Six of these journals were financed three times by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSF) between 2001–2006 and four journals maintained a higher impact factor (>1.0) in 2003–2005. The data show that though the total trend of Impact Factor and Total Citation keeps rising, their subject rank has shown a slight decrease. Moreover, the proportion of international papers and international citations do not match their JCR rank and IF: high rank journals have a low proportion of international papers (Chinese Phys Lett, Chinese Phys) and low rank journals have a high Impact Factor (Cell Res, Asian J Androl). This inconsistency may result from their insufficient internationalization either in international paper proportion (less than 20%) or in the amount of high-quality manuscripts, probably caused by their local journal title, circulation and low IF. Suggested means of improving internationalization include encouraging Chinese scientists to cite more home journals when they publish their papers in foreign journals; soliciting the submission of international co-authorships based on the unavailability of pure foreign authorship; cooperating with internationally recognized publishers to utilize their globalization platform; employing overseas scientists to recruit international papers; improving writing style and content, to enable greater accessibility to worldwide readers.
Abstract
Introduction There are many researches have been conducted on webometrics, especially the impacts of websites on each other and the web impact factor. However, there are few studies focusing on the websites of Iranian universities. This study analyzed the websites of Iranian universities of medical sciences according to the webometric indicators. Method and materials In a cross-sectional study, the number of web pages, inlinks, external inlinks and also the overall and absolute web impact factors for Iranian universities of medical sciences with active exclusive websites were calculated and compared using AltaVista search engine. Finally, the websites were ranked based on these webometric indicators. Results The results showed that the website of Tehran university of medical sciences with 49,300 web pages and 9860 inlinks was ranked first for the size and number of inlinks, while its impact factor was ranked 38th. Rafsanjan UMS with 15 web pages and 211 links had the highest rank for the web impact factor among Iranian universities of medical sciences. Discussions and conclusions The study revealed that Iranian universities of medical sciences did not have much impact on the web and were not well known internationally. The major reason relies on linguistic barriers. Some of them also suffer from technical problems in their web design.
Abstract
This article aimed to report Journal Impact Factor (J-IF) and Journal Immediacy Index (J-II) of 68 Thai academic journals during the past five years (from 1996 to 2000) using the calculation method given by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). This was the first time that the citation indexes of Thai academic journals were established. With respect to the journal impact factor, the results showed that only six journals have been cited continuously during the past five years, this being 8.8% of the total journal number selected in this work. It was also noticeable that articles published in longer journal age tended to have greater opportunity to be cited and higher journal impact factor. The average impact factor of the 68 journals was relatively low, this being of 0.069, suggesting that the possibility of an article published in a national journal to be cited was only 6.9%. In terms of the immediacy index, it was found that the average immediacy index value was 0.063, which was again very low. No significant relationship between the journal age and the immediacy index could be observed. 47% of the journals have never been able to produce the immediacy index in the past five years, suggesting that articles in the Thai academic journals were hardly cited within the same years they were published.
Abstract
Relations of three relative scientometric indicators (Relative Citation Rate, RCR, Relative Subfield Citedness, RW, and Relative Publication Strategy, RPS) are studied. RW can be calculated by the percentage share of citations divided by that of publications. The findings indicate that publishing in journals with relatively high impact factor is a necessary but not sufficient condition for attaining a high RW index.
Abstract
A study undertaken in 1996 of Australia"s performance in the high impact journals of a few selected fields of science has produced empirical data for examining the factors that influence peers in their choice of the "highly-rated" journals in their field. A number of characteristics were used to compare the selected journals with those having the highest impact factor, as listed in ISI"s Journal Citation Reports. This paper ranked journals on three impact factors – ISI"s impact factor for two consecutive years, and one calculated for a five-year window. The data suggests that the type of impact measure was less important in journal selection than the long-term validity of the rankings. A group of experts was less likely to include journals that were only highly ranked for a short period in their "top 20". Of the more descriptive journal characteristics analysed, the age of the journal appeared significant. Their selections also appeared biased against journals that were relatively new, regardless of how high their impact factor was.
