A Comparison of Citations across Multidisciplinary Psychology Journals: A Case Study of Two Independent Journals

Abstract

Citation rates and impact factors are often used in an attempt to evaluate the apparent prestige of scholarly journals and the quality of research published by individual scholars. However, the apparent prestige of "top tier" journals may reflect aggressive marketing and advertising efforts as much as scholarship. Some journals have retained their independence from professional organizations and the funding, marketing, and advocacy policies that may be associated with such organizations. While lacking as much visibility as organizational journals and sometimes considered "lower tier," independent journals may be able to provide comparable scientific quality as measured by citation rates. To test this, the citation rates of 169 articles published by a frequently cited scholar were compared across first- and second-tier journals, including many sponsored and marketed by large professional organizations, and to rates for two independent journals combined, Psychological Reports and Perceptual and Motor Skills. Citation rates were higher for first-tier journals but for most comparisons, especially those that controlled for heterogeneity of variance, results did not differ in statistically significant ways among the three tiers of journals, though some nonsignificant trends (p < .15) were found. If citation rates of articles are any indication of scientific quality, tiered classifications of journals appear to be a relatively weak indicator of scientific merit; journals at any tier contain articles that are useful and of good quality.