This article reports findings from a study of the relationship between citation measures (impact factor and its quartile)
among international composition of editorial board and foreign authorship in 17 Korean SCI journals for the three 5-year periods,
1995, 2000, and 2005. With few exceptions, the relationship between international editorial board composition and foreign
authorship and citation measures was non-existent, at p > 0.05. However, the international members on editorial boards and foreign authorship of papers in Korean journals have increased
greatly over the three 5-year periods, and there has been to a certain degree growth in the visibility and performance of
Korean SCI journals in terms of impact factors, but not their quartiles.
A quick and easy method is presented to estimate the random fluctuations exhibited by citation measures. Applying this method allows for instance a better view on the ranking of journals (their so called pecking order), when the ranks are based on the number of recieved citations or on the impact factor of the journal.
Three measures of international composition on journal editorial boards - the number of countries represented on the board,
the number of international members, and the proportion of international board members - were correlated with impact factor
and total citation data in the 1999 Journal Citation Reportsfor 153 business, political science, and genetics journals. With a few exceptions the relationship between international editorial
board composition and citation measures was non-linear, leading to the conclusion that international membership on the editorial
board can not generally be used as a marker of better journal quality. Yet further investigation is warranted due to positive
correlations between some editorial board and citation measures for non-U.S. business and political science journals.
Journal self-citation is one of the crucial bibliometric indicators, which measures the contribution of a journal towards a speciality. Journal self-citation rate is normalised by adapting a two stage refinement. The normalised self-citing rates are compared with external cited rate to know the self and external influence of journals.
Summary The purpose of this study is to quantify and compare the publication and citation output of the biggest faculties of economics and social sciences in Germany. Various publication and citation measures based upon Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) data are used to explore the comparative strengths and weaknesses of ten academic fields at the named faculties. To reflect the varying size of the fields and faculties, output measures as well as productivity measures are explicitly considered. From a bibliometric perspective empirical results demonstrate that various measures are necessary to adequately identify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of entire faculties and of selected disciplines within faculties.
Authors:Judith Licea De Arenas, Heriberta Castańos-Lomnitz, and Judith Arenas Licea
In the 1970s Mexico started to consolidate its S&T system by training human resources and actively preventing brain drain, mainly by motivating researchers through economic incentives. Considering Bradford"s Law, an analysis of significant Mexican research in the health sciences, i.e., papers published in journals with a high-impact factor which grant a degree of credibility and importance was carried out. Significant papers produced in Mexico show a measure of the country"s productivity, and these papers" citations measure the country"s international impact.
Cross-field comparison of citation measures of scientific achievement or research quality is severely hindered by the diversity
of the stage of development and citation habits of different disciplines or fields. Based on the same principles of RCR (Relative
Citation Rate) and RW (Relative Subfield Citedness), a new dimension — the Relative Superiority Coefficient (SCn) in research quality was introduced. This can indicate clearly the relative research level for research groups at multiple
levels in the respective field by consistent criteria in terms of research quality. Comparison of the SCn within or across 22 broad fields among 5 countries were presented as an application model. Hierarchical Cluster and One-Way
ANOVA were applied and processed by the statistical program SPSS. All original data were from Essential Science Indicators
It appears popular, particularly among science administrators, to use citations and various citation measures for ranking
scientists, as if such exercises would reflect the scientific potential of the persons considered. In recent time the Hirsch
index h in particular has obtained visibility in this respect in view of its simplicity. We consider a possible extension
of the concept of selective citations, which in fact is innate to the h index, and propose a simple generalization, indices
H and Q, which to a degree supplement the information accompanying the evaluation of h. The H index keeps record of the “history”
of citations and the quotient Q = H/h is a measure for the quality of a scientist based on the history of his/her citations.
In a recent paper the authors have studied the role of author self-citations within the process of documented scientific communication. Two important regularities such as the relative fast ageing of self-citations with respect to foreign citations and the “square-root law” characterising the conditional expectation of self-citations for given number of foreign citation have been found studying the phenomenon of author self-citations at the macro level. The goal of the present paper is to study the effect of author self-citations on macro indicators. The analysis of citation based indicators for 15 fields in the sciences, social sciences and humanities substantiates that at this level of aggregation there is no need for any revision of national indicators and the underlying journal citation measures in the context of excluding self-citations.