Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez, Bianca S. Mira, Daniel Martínez-Ávila, M. C. Grácio
{"title":"Real influence: A novel approach to characterize the visibility of journals and publications","authors":"Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez, Bianca S. Mira, Daniel Martínez-Ávila, M. C. Grácio","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n For the last fifty years, the journal impact factor (IF) has been the most prominent of all bibliometric indicators. Since the first Journal Citation Report was launched, the IF has been used, often improperly, to evaluate institutions, publications, and individuals. Its well-known significant technical limitations have not detracted from its popularity, and they contrast with the lack of consensus over the numerous alternatives suggested as complements or replacements. This paper presents a percentile distribution-based proposal for assessing the influence of scientific journals and publications that corrects several of the IF’s main technical limitations using the same set of documents as is used to calculate the IF. Nearly 400 journals of Library Science and Information Science and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology categories were analyzed for this purpose. The results show that the new indicator retains many of its predecessor’s advantages and adds benefits of its own: It is more accurate, more gaming-resistant, more complete, and less influenced by the citation window or extreme observations.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
For the last fifty years, the journal impact factor (IF) has been the most prominent of all bibliometric indicators. Since the first Journal Citation Report was launched, the IF has been used, often improperly, to evaluate institutions, publications, and individuals. Its well-known significant technical limitations have not detracted from its popularity, and they contrast with the lack of consensus over the numerous alternatives suggested as complements or replacements. This paper presents a percentile distribution-based proposal for assessing the influence of scientific journals and publications that corrects several of the IF’s main technical limitations using the same set of documents as is used to calculate the IF. Nearly 400 journals of Library Science and Information Science and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology categories were analyzed for this purpose. The results show that the new indicator retains many of its predecessor’s advantages and adds benefits of its own: It is more accurate, more gaming-resistant, more complete, and less influenced by the citation window or extreme observations.
过去五十年来,期刊影响因子(IF)一直是所有文献计量指标中最重要的指标。自第一份《期刊引文报告》发布以来,IF 一直被用来评价机构、出版物和个人,但往往使用不当。众所周知,IF 在技术上有很大的局限性,但这并没有影响它的受欢迎程度,与此形成鲜明对比的是,人们对作为补充或替代的众多替代指标缺乏共识。本文提出了一种基于百分位数分布的科学期刊和出版物影响力评估建议,利用计算 IF 所用的同一组文献,修正了 IF 的几个主要技术局限。为此分析了近 400 种图书馆科学与信息科学类期刊和生物化学与分子生物学类期刊。结果表明,新指标保留了其前身的许多优点,并增加了自身的优势:它更准确、更耐博弈、更完整,受引用窗口或极端观察的影响也更小。