How are journal impact, prestige and article influence related? An application to neuroscience

Chia‐Lin Chang · Michael J. McAleer · Les Oxley

28 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Statistics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

The paper analyzes the leading journals in neurosciences using quantifiable research assessment measures (RAM), highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM, shows that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics of highly cited journals, and shows that some other RAM have low correlations with each other, and hence add significant informational value. Alternative RAM are discussed for the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). The RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily include the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor, immediacy (or zero-year impact factor), Eigenfactor score, article influence score, C3PO (citation performance per paper online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (papers ignored by even the authors), 2-year and historical self-citation threshold approval ratings, impact factor inflation, and cited article influence (CAI). The RAM are analyzed for 26 highly cited journals in the ISI category of neurosciences. The paper finds that the Eigenfactor score and PI-BETA are not highly correlated with the other RAM scores, so that they convey additional information regarding journal rankings, that article influence is highly correlated with some existing RAM, so that it has little informative incremental value, and that CAI has additional informational value to that of article influence. Harmonic mean rankings of the 13 RAM criteria for the 26 highly cited journals are also presented. Emphasizing the 2YIF of a journal to the exclusion of other informative RAM criteria is shown to lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence, especially given the informative value of several other RAM.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

References

2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research 2007Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals 2008The Eigenfactor™ Metrics: Figure 1.2009The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor 2011Great Expectatrics: Great Papers, Great Journals, Great Econometrics

Cited by

2012Ranking journal quality by harmonic mean of ranks: an application to ISI statistics & probability 2014How variable are the journal impact measures?2013Ranking Leading Econometrics Journals Using Citations Data from ISI and RePEc 2014How Should Journal Quality be Ranked?An Application to Agricultural, Energy, Environmental and Resource Economics 2013WHAT DO EXPERTS KNOW ABOUT FORECASTING JOURNAL QUALITY? A COMPARISON WITH ISI RESEARCH IMPACT IN FINANCE 2016Quality weighted citations versus total citations in the sciences and social sciences, with an application to finance and accounting 2018A Very Long Embargo: Journal Choice Reveals Active Non-Compliance with Funder Open Access Policies by Australian and Canadian Neuroscientists

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.