The status of an actor in a social context is commonly defined in terms of two factors: the total number of endorsements the actor receives from other actors and the prestige of the endorsing actors. These two factors indicate the distinction between popularity and expert appreciation of the actor, respectively. We refer to the former as popularity and to the latter as prestige. These notions of popularity and prestige also apply to the domain of scholarly assessment. The ISI Impact Factor (ISI IF) is defined as the mean number of citations a journal receives over a 2 year period. By merely counting the amount of citations and disregarding the prestige of the citing journals, the ISI IF is a metric of popularity, not of prestige. We demonstrate how a weighted version of the popular PageRank algorithm can be used to obtain a metric that reflects prestige. We contrast the rankings of journals according to their ISI IF and their weighted PageRank, and we provide an analysis that reveals both significant overlaps and differences. Furthermore, we introduce the Y-factor which is a simple combination of both the ISI IF and the weighted PageRank, and find that the resulting journal rankings correspond well to a general understanding of journal status.
A new size-independent indicator of scientific journal prestige, the SJR2 indicator, is proposed. This indicator takes into account not only the prestige of the citing scientific journal but also its closeness to the cited journal using the cosine of the angle between the vectors of the two journals' cocitation profiles. To eliminate the size effect, the accumulated prestige is divided by the fraction of the journal's citable documents, thus eliminating the decreasing tendency of this type of indicator and giving meaning to the scores. Its method of computation is described, and the results of…
We propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weighted citation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. We compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
This paper proposes an indicator of journals' scientific prestige, the SJR indicator, for ranking scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality to be used in complex and heterogeneous citation networks such Scopus. Its computation methodology is described and the results after implementing the indicator over Scopus 2007 dataset are compared to an ad-hoc Journal Impact Factor both generally and inside specific scientific areas. The results showed that SJR indicator and JIF distributions fitted well to a power law distribution and that both metrics were strong…
The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite. We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories. Non-outliers …
The number of citations is a widely used metric to evaluate the scientific credit of papers, scientists and journals. However, it does happen that a paper with fewer citations from prestigious scientists is of higher influence than papers with more citations. In this paper, we argue that from whom the paper is being cited is of higher significance than merely the number of received citations. Accordingly, we propose an interactive model on author-paper bipartite networks as well as an iterative algorithm to get better rankings for scientists and their publications. The main advantage of this m…
While the ``hierarchy of science'' has been widely analysed, there is no corresponding study of the status of subfields within a given scientific field. We use bibliometric data to show that subfields of mathematics have a different ``standing'' within the mathematics community. Highly ranked departments tend to specialize in some subfields more than in others, and the same subfields are also over-represented in the most selective mathematics journals or among recipients of top prizes. Moreover this status of subfields evolves markedly over the period of observation (1984--2016), with some sub…
Nowadays impact factor is the significant indicator for journal evaluation. In impact factor calculation is used number of all citations to journal, regardless of the prestige of cited journals, however, scientific units (paper, researcher, journal or scientific organization) cited by journals with high impact factor or researchers with high Hirsch index are more important than objects cited by journals without impact factor or unknown researcher. In this paper was offered weighted impact factor for getting more accurate rankings for journals, which consider not only quantity of citations, but…
Whether a scientific paper is cited is related not only to the influence of its author(s) but also to the journal publishing it. Scientists, either proficient or tender, usually submit their most important work to prestigious journals which receives higher citations than the ordinary. How to model the role of scientific journals in citation dynamics is of great importance. In this paper we address this issue through two folds. One is the intrinsic heterogeneity of a paper determined by the impact factor of the journal publishing it. The other is the mechanism of a paper being cited which depen…
The impact factor has been extensively used in the last years to assess journals visibility and prestige. While the impact factor is useful to compare journals, the specificities of subfields visibility in journals are overlooked whenever visibility is measured only at the journal level. In this paper, we analyze the subfields visibility in a subset of over 450,000 Physics papers. We show that the visibility of subfields is not regular in the considered dataset. In particular years, the variability in subfields impact factor in a journal reached 75% of the average subfields impact factor. We a…
This study examines a range of factors associating with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modelled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven di…
Empirical evidence shows that co-authored publications achieve higher visibility and impact. The aim of the current work is to test for the existence of a similar correlation for Italian publications. We also verify if such correlation differs: i) by subject category and macro-area; ii) by document type; iii) over the course of time. The results confirm world-level evidence, showing a consistent and significant linear growth in the citability of a publication with number of co-authors, in almost all subject categories. The effects are more remarkable in the fields of Social Sciences and Art & …
A bibliometric analysis to evaluate global scientific production in the subject category of Operations Research and Management Science (OR/MS) from 2001 to 2012 was applied. Data was based on the Web of Science (Science Citation Index) database compiled by Thomson Reuters. The results showed that the OR/MS research has significantly increased over the past twelve years. The Bradford core journals in the category were identified. The researchers paid great attention to networks, control, and simulation. Among the countries, USA attained a dominant position in global research in the field.
Eysenbach has suggested that the OA (Green) self-archiving advantage might just be an artifact of potential uncontrolled confounding factors such as article age (older articles may be both more cited and more likely to be self-archived), number of authors (articles with more authors might be more cited and more self-archived), subject matter (the subjects that are cited more, self-archive more), country (same thing), number of authors, citation counts of authors, etc. Chawki Hajjem (doctoral candidate, UQaM) had already shown that the OA advantage was present in all cases when articles were an…
Here we show a novel technique for comparing subject categories, where the prestige of academic journals in each category is represented statistically by an impact-factor histogram. For each subject category we compute the probability of occurrence of scholarly journals with impact factor in different intervals. Here impact factor is measured with Thomson Reuters Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Score, and Immediacy Index. Assuming the probabilities associated with a pair of subject categories our objective is to measure the degree of dissimilarity between them. To do so, we use an axiomatic charact…
