Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie

In a recent paper in the Journal of Informetrics, Habibzadeh and Yadollahie [Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 164–172] propose a journal weighted impact factor (WIF). Unlike the ordinary impact factor, the WIF of a journal takes into account the prestige or the influence of citing journals. In this communication, we show that the way in which Habibzadeh and Yadollahie calculate the WIF of a journal has some serious problems. Due to these problems, a ranking of journals based on WIF can be misleading. We also indicate how the problems can be solved by changing the way in which the WIF of a journal is calculated.     

Mathematical derivation of the impact factor distribution

Experimental data [Mansilla, R., Köppen, E., Cocho, G., & Miramontes, P. (2007). On the behavior of journal impact factor rank-order distribution. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 155–160] reveal that, if one ranks a set of journals (e.g. in a field) in decreasing order of their impact factors, the rank distribution of the logarithm of these impact factors has a typical S-shape: first a convex decrease, followed by a concave decrease. In this paper we give a mathematical formula for this distribution and explain the S-shape. Also the experimentally found smaller convex part and larger concave part is explained. If one studies the rank distribution of the impact factors themselves, we now prove that we have the same S-shape but with inflection point in μ, the average of the impact factors. These distributions are valid for any type of impact factor (any publication period and any citation period). They are even valid for any sample average rank distribution.     

Some comments on Egghe's derivation of the impact factor distribution

In a recent paper, Egghe [Egghe, L. (in press). Mathematical derivation of the impact factor distribution. Journal of Informetrics] presents a mathematical analysis of the rank-order distribution of journal impact factors. The analysis is based on the central limit theorem. We criticize the empirical relevance of Egghe's analysis. More specifically, we argue that Egghe's analysis relies on an unrealistic assumption and we show that the analysis is not in agreement with empirical data.     

Empirical modeling of the impact factor distribution

The distribution of impact factors has been modeled in the recent informetric literature using two-exponent law proposed by Mansilla, Köppen, Cocho, and Miramontes (2007). This paper shows that two distributions widely-used in economics, namely the Dagum and Singh-Maddala models, possess several advantages over the two-exponent model. Compared to the latter, the former models give as good as or slightly better fit to data on impact factors in eight important scientific fields. In contrast to the two-exponent model, both proposed distributions have closed-from probability density functions and cumulative distribution functions, which facilitates fitting these distributions to data and deriving their statistical properties.     

Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor

Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields.     

Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation

This study established a technological impact factor (TIF) derived from journal impact factor (JIF), which is proposed to evaluate journals from the aspect of practical innovation. This impact factor mainly examines the influence of journal articles on patents by calculating the number of patents cited to a journal divided by the number of articles published in that particular journal. The values of TIF for five-year (TIF₅) and ten-year (TIF₁₀) periods at the journal level and aggregated TIF values (TIF_{AGG_5} and TIF_{AGG_10}) at the category level were provided and compared to the JIF. The results reveal that journals with higher TIF values showed varied performances in the JCR, while the top ten journals on JIF₅ showed consistent good performance in TIFs. Journals in three selected categories – Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Research & Experimental Medicine, and Organic Chemistry – showed that TIF₅ and TIF₁₀ values are not strongly correlated with JIF₅. Thus, TIFs can provide a new indicator for evaluating journals from the aspect of practical innovation.     

论用期刊影响因子评价论文作者的逻辑前提与局限性

目前,用期刊的影响因子取代论文的实际引用次数来评价作者或科研成果,是一个有争议的问题.从影响因子的概念、应用于评价的前提条件和其局限性等方面入手,分析采用期刊影响因子来评价论文作者可能存在的问题,为合理地将影响因子作为科研绩效评价工具提供参考.     

中国、印度计算机科学领域论文影响力的比较研究

文章以1999-2008年Science Citation Index--Expanded为数据来源,从发文数量、被引频次、发文期刊的时间分布、期刊影响因子、被引频次等方面对中国和印度两国在计算机科学领域内论文的发文情况进行了比较研究。     

论用期刊影响因子评价论文作者的逻辑前提与局限性

目前,用期刊的影响因子取代论文的实际引用次数来评价作者或科研成果,是一个争议的问题.从影响因子的概念、应用于评价的前提条件和其局限性等方面入手,分析采用期刊影响因子来评价论文作者可能存在的问题,为合理地将影响因子作为科研绩效评价工具提供参考.     

A user-centric approach to identifying best deployment strategies for language tools: the impact of content and access language on Web user behaviour and attitudes

The number of Web users whose first language is not English continues to grow, as does the amount of content provided in languages other than English. This poses new challenges for actors on the Web, such as in which language(s) content should be offered, how search tools should deal with mono- and multilingual content, and how users can make the best use of navigation and search options, suited to their individual linguistic skills. How should these challenges be dealt with? Technological approaches to non-English (or in general, cross-language) Web search have made large progress; however, translation remains a hard problem. This precludes a low-cost but high-quality blanket all-language coverage of the whole Web. In this paper, we propose a user-centric approach to answering questions of where to best concentrate efforts and investments. Drawing on linguistic research, we describe data on the availability of content and access to it in first and second languages across the Web. We then present three studies that investigated the impact of the availability (or not) of first-language content and access forms on user behaviour and attitudes. The results indicate that non-English languages are under-represented on the Web and that this is partly due to content-creation, link-setting and link-following behaviour. They also show that user satisfaction is influenced both by the cognitive effort of searching and the availability of alternative information in that language. These findings suggest that more cross-language tools are desirable. However, they also indicate that context (such as user groups’ domain expertise or site type) should be considered when tradeoffs between information quality and multilinguality need to be taken into account.     

On the relation between the degree of internationalization of cited and citing publications: A field level analysis,including and excluding self-citations

The growing complexity of scientific challenges demands increasingly intense research collaboration, both domestic and international. The resulting trend affects not only the modes of producing new knowledge, but also the way it is disseminated within scientific communities. This paper analyses the relationship between the “degree of internationalization” of a country’s scientific production and that of the relevant citing publications. The empirical analysis is based on 2010-2012 Italian publications. Findings show: i) the probability of being cited increases with the degree of internationalization of the research team; ii) totally domestic research teams tend to cite to a greater extent totally domestic publications; iii) vice versa, publications resulting from international collaborations tend to be more cited by totally foreign publications rather than by publications including domestic authors. These results emerge both at overall and at discipline level. Findings might inform research policies geared towards internationalization.     

缓解高校图书馆急剧增长的藏书量与馆舍不足的矛盾之探讨

就各高校图书馆普遍存在的藏书量激增与馆舍不足的矛盾,进行了分析、探讨,对缓解此矛盾提出了一些建议。     

How to consider fractional counting and field normalization in the statistical modeling of bibliometric data: A multilevel Poisson regression approach

The numerical-algorithmic procedures of fractional counting and field normalization are often mentioned as indispensable requirements for bibliometric analyses. Against the background of the increasing importance of statistics in bibliometrics, a multilevel Poisson regression model (level 1: publication, level 2: author) shows possible ways to consider fractional counting and field normalization in a statistical model (fractional counting I). However, due to the assumption of duplicate publications in the data set, the approach is not quite optimal. Therefore, a more advanced approach, a multilevel multiple membership model, is proposed that no longer provides for duplicates (fractional counting II). It is assumed that the citation impact can essentially be attributed to time-stable dispositions of researchers as authors who contribute with different fractions to the success of a publication’s citation. The two approaches are applied to bibliometric data for 254 scientists working in social science methodology. A major advantage of fractional counting II is that the results no longer depend on the type of fractional counting (e.g., equal weighting). Differences between authors in rankings are reproduced more clearly than on the basis of percentiles. In addition, the strong importance of field normalization is demonstrated; 60% of the citation variance is explained by field normalization.     

现行读者制度与公共图书馆理念的冲突及对策探析

分析了目前公共图书馆现行读者制度与公共图书馆理念相冲突的现状,并提出了解决冲突的建议。     

跨越文化 寻求共识——从文化与认知的视角重新审视向世界传播中国文化的方式

在吉尔兹(Clifford Geertz)所开创的跨文化传播研究中,传统的研究者们始终将目光聚焦于发现不同种类文化间的差异,并在了解差异的基础之上,实现相互理解。这一经典的研究方法所存在的一个最重要问题就是它假设了全人类没有一个共通的认知共性,从而导致文化与认知之间相互循环论证的解释悖论。在本文中,作者将另辟蹊径,试图结合近年来文化心理学与认知心理学的前沿成果,在发现人类认知共性的基础上,寻找跨文化传播中的共识,并重新审视中国文化走出去战略中的核心问题。