Citation differences across research funding and access modalities

This research provides insight into the complex relationship between open access, funding, and citation advantage. It presents an analysis of research articles and their citations in the Scopus database across 40 subject categories. The sample includes 12 categories from Health Sciences, 7 from Life Sciences, 10 from Physical Sciences & Engineering, and 11 from Social Sciences & Humanities. Specifically, the analysis focuses on articles published in 2016 and the citations they received from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that open access articles published in hybrid journals receive considerably more citations than those published in gold open access journals. Articles under the hybrid gold modality are cited on average twice as much as those in the gold modality, regardless of funding. Furthermore, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50 % more citations than unfunded ones within the same publication modality. Open access repositories significantly increase citations, particularly for articles without funding. Thus, articles in open access repositories receive 50 % more citations than paywalled ones.     

On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition

Delayed recognition is a concept applied to articles that receive very few to no citations for a certain period of time following publication, before becoming actively cited. To determine whether such a time spent in relative obscurity had an effect on subsequent citation patterns, we selected articles that received no citations before the passage of ten full years since publication, investigated the subsequent yearly citations received over a period of 37 years and compared them with the citations received by a group of papers without such a latency period. Our study finds that papers with delayed recognition do not exhibit the typical early peak, then slow decline in citations, but that the vast majority enter decline immediately after their first – and often only – citation. Middling papers’ citations remain stable over their lifetime, whereas the more highly cited papers, some of which fall into the “sleeping beauty” subtype, show non-stop growth in citations received. Finally, papers published in different disciplines exhibit similar behavior and did not differ significantly.     

A Local Citation Analysis of a Business School Faculty: A Comparison of the Who,What, Where,and When of Their Citations

Publications of the faculty of the University of Mississippi's School of Business were examined for a citation analysis. The following data were collected: journals cited, which publishers’ journals were cited, age of the citations, and the Library of Congress classification range cited. The results were analyzed by the business school as a whole and by the four major departments in the college: Finance, Management, Management Information Systems/Production Operations Management, and Marketing. The study was undertaken to gain a better understanding of the local faculty researchers’ needs, to examine how the library supports their needs, and to compare the local results with the metaresearch focused on specific subject or journal.     

Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation

Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality.     

Bibliometric profile of top-cited single-author articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded

In this study, we identified and analyzed characteristics of top-cited single-author articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1991 to 2010. A top-cited single-author article was defined as an article that had been cited at least 1000 times from the time of its publication to 2012. Results showed that 1760 top-cited single-author articles were published in 539 journals listed in 130 Web of Science categories between 1901 and 2010. The top productive journal was Science and the most productive category was multidisciplinary physics. Most of the articles were not published in high-impact journals. Harvard University led all other institutions in publishing top-cited single-author articles. Nobel Prize winners contributed 7.0% of articles. In total, 72 Nobel Prize winners published 124 single-author articles. Single-authored papers published in different periods exhibited different patterns of citation trends. However, top-cited articles consistently showed repetitive peaks regardless of the time period of publication. “Theory (or theories)” was the most frequently appeared title word of all time. Leading title words varied at different time periods, and only five title words, method(s), protein(s), structure(s), molecular, and quantum consistently remained in the top 20 in different time periods.     

Availability of Works Cited in Recent Law Review Articles on LEXIS,Westlaw, the Internet,and Other Databases

SUMMARY

In this study, a group of recent law articles was examined to determine the proportion of cited resources that are easily findable online. Searches were conducted in databases such as LEXIS and Westlaw, and on the Internet, for full-text versions of every source cited in seven articles. The results have been broken down into 13 categories, including “federal cases,” “books,” “foreign law,” and “legal periodicals pre-1990.” Not surprisingly, coverage differs widely between the categories. Overall, the study found that 77% of the 1,984 citations in the articles reviewed are available online. The article concludes with a general discussion of why the percentage is likely to increase in the future.     

Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment

Over the past decade, national research evaluation exercises, traditionally conducted using the peer review method, have begun opening to bibliometric indicators. The citations received by a publication are assumed as proxy for its quality, but they require standardization prior to use in comparative evaluation of organizations or individual scientists: the citation data must be standardized, due to the varying citation behavior across research fields. The objective of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of the different methods of normalizing citations, in order to provide useful indications to research assessment practitioners. Simulating a typical national research assessment exercise, he analysis is conducted for all subject categories in the hard sciences and is based on the Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index-Expanded^®. Comparisons show that the citations average is the most effective scaling parameter, when the average is based only on the publications actually cited.     

机械、仪表工业类核心期刊的引文分析

对《中文核心期刊要目总览》收录的机械、仪表工业类 2 5种核心期刊中 1998年所载论文的引文进行调查统计。对平均载文量、引文的数量、文献类型、语种分布、年代分布和各种中文文献被引频次等有关信息进行定量分析 ,客观地对该类 2 5种核心期刊的引文水平和一般规律进行综合评价     

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.     

The measurement of production efficiency in scientific journals through stochastic frontier analysis models: Application to quantitative economics journals

The importance of a scientific journal is usually established by considering the number of citations received by the papers that the journal publishes. In this way, the number of citations received by a scientific journal can be considered as a measure of the total production of the journal. In this paper, in order to obtain measures of the efficiency in the production process, the approach provided by stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) is considered, and econometric models are proposed. These models estimate a frontier production, which is the maximum achievable number of citations to the journal based on its resources. The efficiency can then be measured by considering the difference between the actual production and the estimated frontier. This approach is applied to the measurement of the productive efficiency of the journals of the JCR social sciences edition database, which belong simultaneously to the areas of “economics” and “social sciences, mathematical methods”.     

从CSSCI引文年代分布看中国社会科学期刊影响因子的计算

Garfield等在20世纪60年代提出的期刊影响因子是评价期刊的重要指标之一。对中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)来源论文之引文年代分布及其与美国社会科学引文索引(SSCI)的比较分析说明两者基本一致,对CSSCI引文中中文期刊、中文社科学术期刊及CSSCI来源期刊的年代分布分析说明:中文社科期刊的被引高峰期与国际期刊被引高峰期相同,均在其出版后的第二年和第三年。国际通用的影响因子算法完全适用于中国的中文人文社会科学期刊。     

Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm

We apply the Google PageRank algorithm to assess the relative importance of all publications in the Physical Review family of journals from 1893 to 2003. While the Google number and the number of citations for each publication are positively correlated, outliers from this linear relation identify some exceptional papers or “gems” that are universally familiar to physicists.     

Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science

Analysis of 131 publications during 2006–2007 by staff of the School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University reveals that the journal impact factor, article length and type (i.e., article or review), and journal self-citations affect the citations accrued to 2012. Authors seeking to be well cited should aim to write comprehensive and substantial review articles, and submit them to journals with a high impact factor which has previously carried articles on the topic. Nonetheless, strategic placement of articles is complementary to, and no substitute for careful crafting of good quality research. Evidence remains equivocal regarding the contribution of an author's prior publication success (h-index) and of open-access journals.     

Biblioranking fundamental physics

Counting of number of papers, of citations and the h-index are the simplest bibliometric indices of the impact of research. We discuss some improvements. First, we replace citations with individual citations, fractionally shared among co-authors, to take into account that different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation descendants that we call PaperRank. We compute a related AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular-citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of Citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, presenting results for papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries for all-time and in recent time periods.     

The Web impact of open access social science research

For a long time, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journal citations have been widely used for research performance monitoring of the sciences. For the social sciences, however, the Social Sciences Citation Index® (SSCI®) can sometimes be insufficient. Broader types of publications (e.g., books and non-ISI journals) and informal scholarly indicators may also be needed. This article investigates whether the Web can help to fill this gap. The authors analyzed 1530 citations from Google™ to 492 research articles from 44 open access social science journals. The articles were published in 2001 in the fields of education, psychology, sociology, and economics. About 19% of the Web citations represented formal impact equivalent to journal citations, and 11% were more informal indicators of impact. The average was about 3 formal and 2 informal impact citations per article. Although the proportions of formal and informal online impact were similar in sociology, psychology, and education, economics showed six times more formal impact than informal impact. The results suggest that new types of citation information and informal scholarly indictors could be extracted from the Web for the social sciences. Since these form only a small proportion of the Web citations, however, Web citation counts should first be processed to remove irrelevant citations. This can be a time-consuming process unless automated.     

近5年我国图书馆学期刊被引情况调查及分析

统计了我国 19种图书馆学期刊 1994年 8月～ 1998年 12月发文被引用情况 ,并对被引频次等相关数据进行了分析与研究 ,认为有 9种期刊是核心期刊。其中 ,《中国图书馆学报》为第一。从论文被引情况 ,以及其 10 7篇重要论文作者及选题分布来看 ,《中国图书馆学报》是图书馆学研究最重要的核心期刊。表 6。参考文献 13。     

国际基础科学核心期刊H指数实证研究

从ISI数据库获得的期刊h指数和从Scopus数据库获得的期刊h指数高度一致,而期刊h指数与期刊影响因子IF可以作为相互独立的期刊评价指标;用不同学科的篇均被引次数fm作为归一化因子对h指数进行归一化处理后所得的hf指数可用于对不同学科期刊进行直接比较,hf指数越大的期刊品质越优。     

Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime

Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact.If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters’ journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics.     

HTTP 404-page (not) found: Recovery of decayed URL citations

Study investigates the availability, persistence and half life of URL citations cited in two Indian LIS journals articles published between 2002 and 2010. This study also investigates how researchers can resurrect lapsed URL citations cited in research articles, using Wayback machine. A total of 1290 URLs cited in 472 research articles published in Indian LIS journals spanning a period of 9 years (2002–2010) were extracted. Study found that only 18.91% (1290 out of 6820) of URLs cited in these journal articles. 39.84% of URL citations were not accessible and remaining 60.15% of URL citations were still accessible. The HTTP 404 error message-“page not found” was the overwhelming message encountered and represented 54.86% of all HTTP error messages. However 51.06% URLs were recovered from HTTP 404 error message. Study also noticed that the half-life of URL citations was increased from 6.33 years to 13.85 years after recovering missing URLs from Wayback machine.