Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?

Celebrating the Latest Release of the Journal Impact Factors: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally.

Impact Factors and Other Measures of a Journal's Influence

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.Design/methodology/approachTop 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.FindingsIt was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.Research limitations/implicationsThe study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.Originality/valueThe study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

INTRODUCTIONGarfield's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been the bibliometric indicator most commonly used by librarians, researchers and research managers. Although JIF has faced criticism, and reports of malpractices have surfaced, it is still considered by some authors the most relevant indicator to evaluate the influence of scientific journals (Zitt, 2012). However, arguments against the arbitrary use of this indicator in research evaluation are well-known, and many authors have disclosed unethical manipulations by journal editors and common misuses by individuals who lack competence in the field of quantitative studies of science (Archambault & Lariviere, 2009; Pendlebury & Adams, 2012; Smith, 2012; Weingart, 2005). Hence, bibliometricians have expressed a need for greater rigor and accuracy in journal assessments, as well as for more inclusive and viable alternatives.The relevance of JIF is directly related to the essential role of the citation indexes created also by Eugene Garfield since 1963, currently covered by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS). These sources were considered the mainstream of scientific bibliometric analysis for more than four decades. Over the last ten years, the emergence of new citation indexes and wide-ranging scientific databases as Google Scholar or Scopus has in turn brought about the emergence of new journal indicators, long sought after by the academic community (Brown, 2011; Fragkiadaki & Evangelidis, 2014). Scopus, the database of peerreviewed literature developed by Elsevier, has become one of the main data sources for new journal indicators, which have been developed and tested with the aim of complementing and overcoming the limitations of the impact factor highlighted by the scientific literature (Leydesdorff, 2009; Torres-Salinas & Jimenez-Contreras, 2010). Journal Metrics, a new Web service launched by Elsevier in 2014, provides free accessible indicators to measure the citation impact of the journals indexed by Scopus. The impact metrics provided are based on methodologies developed by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CTWS) of Leiden University (The Netherlands) and the SCImago Research Group (Spain).Among the journal metrics provided (free of charge) at this website, there were two that were considered as viable alternatives to JIF: the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). Thomson Reuters also took the initiative to include advanced journal indicators in its Journal Citation Report as the Eigenfactor Score (EFS) (Jacso, 2010). However, judging by Scopus' wide coverage and quality, SNIP and SJR have positioned themselves ahead of JIF and EFS as real contenders to measure the influence and prestige of scientific journals (Falagas, Kouranos, Arencibia-Jorge & Karageorgopoulos, 2008; Leydesdorff & Opthof, 2010; Moed, 2011; Schoepfel & Prost, 2009; Torres-Salinas & Jimenez-Contreras, 2010). Thus, in the race to obtain advanced bibliometric indicators as support tools for peer review, both alternatives are gaining an important degree of acceptance.In spite of their relevance, studies about the use of these new indicators to analyze the behavior of Latin American scientific journals are still scarce. Most of the bibliometric studies of Latin American journals use Thomson Reuters' citation indexes as data sources (CollazoReyes, 2014; Collazo-Reyes, Luna-Morales, Russell, & Perez-Angon, 2008; Gomez, Sancho, Moreno & Fernandez, 1999; Macias-Chapula, 2010; Torricella-Morales, Van Hooydonk & Araujo-Ruiz, 2000).The search for a strategy to enhance the visibility of Latin American journals and to realize their inclusion in the mainstream core, has been an objective of regional scientific policies since the beginning of the 1990s (Gomez, Sancho, Moreno & Fernandez, 1999; Meneghini, Mugnaini & Packer, 2006; Velez-Cuartas, Lucio-Arias & Leydesdorff, 2016; Vessuri, 1995). …

The Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and Web of Science (WoS) platforms are arguably the most influential journal citation/metric databases worldwide. Journals must first be indexed in the WoS Core Collection (CC) before being indexed in the JCR. The JCR and WoS platform are separate Clarivate Analytics products, but the JCR is included in the WoS platform for organizations that purchase both databases. The analysis for this study focused on citation data reported in the 2017 JCR (based on 2016 citation data) and other data reported in the WoS CC up to 2016. A total of 14 journals are indexed in the 2017 JCR agricultural engineering category; however, only 13 journals are analyzed in this because one journal was listed by mistake. Six of the 13 journals are published by large for-profit publishers (i.e., Elsevier B.V. or Springer Verlag) and the other seven are published by respective professional societies. The journals were analyzed as a function of type (specialty versus comprehensive), type of publisher and publication frequency, metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), volumes of articles published by year and journal, and the source institutions and countries of published articles. Bioenergy- and industrial crop-focused journals included in the 2017 JCR agricultural engineering category manifest the strongest overall metrics, as evidenced by relatively high JIF scores: Bioresource Technology (4.917), Biomass and Bioenergy (3.219) and Industrial Crops and Products (3.181). In contrast, the highest JIF reported in the 2017 JCR for a comprehensive agricultural engineering journal was 2.044 for Biosystems Engineering. During 2006 to 2016, the number of articles indexed in the Core Collection for the JCR agricultural engineering category rose from 1,124 to 4,078, an increase of 263%. Over 70% of the total articles published in 2016 were published in the three bioenergy- or industrial-crop focused journals. The top three countries that published the highest levels of WoS Core Collection agricultural engineering articles in 2016 were China (1132), United States (669) and Brazil (474). The similar top publishing institutions were the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA; 136), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS; 136) and Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR; 79). The results of the study also show that publishing by Chinese scientists in the 13 journals indexed in the JCR Agricultural Engineering (AE) category is rapidly increasing, with seven research institutions ranked in the global top 20 in 2016, based on studies published in journals indexed in the JCR agricultural engineering category. The analysis also reveals that the specialty journals (e.g., the three bioenergy-focused journals) are not directly comparable with the comprehensive agricultural engineering journals and should potentially be excluded from future versions of the JCR and WoS CC AE categories. Keywords: Web of Science, JCR, agricultural engineering, impact factor, USDA, CAS, comprehensive, specialty DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181105.3083 Citation: Wang Y J, Gassman P W, Wang Y K, Pu Y J. Analysis of journal content characteristics and metrics reported in the Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science Core Collection Agricultural Engineering categories. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2018; 11(5): 1–26.

Assessing the quality of journals in the realm of health care science and services is an intricate and vital pursuit, especially given the swift evolution of health care research amidst global challenges and technological progress. Bibliometric indicators have emerged as indispensable instruments for quantifying and comparing the impact, reach, and significance of scholarly contributions. In this study, a range of bibliometric indicators, including Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Score, Cite Score, and h-index, were utilized. We curated a list of 105 health care science and services journals using data from the Journal Citation Report (JCR) within the Web of Science (WOS), journal metrics from the Scopus database (Cite Score and SNIP), and h5-index from Google Scholar. Additionally, the SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) was obtained from its official website. Subsequently, Bivariate Pearson’s (r) and Spearman’s (ρ) correlation coefficient tests were conducted to evaluate ranking correlations. The findings revealed strong Pearson’s (r) statistical correlations between JIF and CS (r = 0.908) and between JIF and SJR (r = 0.875), while moderate correlations were observed between JIF and H5-median, H5-index, and SNIP (r = 0.769, r = 0.730, and r = 0.645, respectively). Spearman’s rho analysis indicated high correlations between JIF and CS (ρ = 0.907) and between JIF and SJR (ρ = 0.863), with lower correlations among H5-median, SNIP, and H5-index indicators (ρ = 0.798, ρ = 0.763, and ρ = 0.750, respectively).

<p>In this editorial we take the opportunity provided by the release of the 2014 Google Scholar Journal Metrics to explain the various journal metrics, how they are calculated and how AJET rates against other Educational Technology journals. Journal metrics broadly refer to the various measures of quality or impact of a journal, largely based on the number of articles published in the journal itself and citations in other journals to articles published in the journal. As well as being used to rank the journals themselves, metrics are often used as a proxy measure of the quality of articles in a particular journal, and thus individual researchers’ publication lists. The three most well known journal metric sources are the Thomson Routers Journal Citation Reports (previously known as the ISI Journal Citation Reports), Google Scholar Metrics, and Scopus Journal Analyser. Each of these sources includes a number of metrics or indices that use specific algorithms drawing on data within their own databases of journals, articles and citations. This editorial explains the key metrics used by these sources.</p>

Misuse of Journal Impact Factors in Scientific Assessment

There are marked barriers to research and publishing for low- and middle- income country (LMIC) ENT researchers. This could be reflected in LMIC journal characteristics and research, which has never been investigated. We aim to characterize differences in the number, geographic distribution, publishing costs, reach, number of articles, citations, and impact factors of high-income country (HIC) journals compared to LMIC journals. We included journals listed under the category "Otorhinolaryngology' in three major journal databases. From journal websites, we collected data related to financial model, waiver policy, access, and distribution. Additionally, from the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2022, we collected the following journal metrics: total articles, total citations, journal citation indicator, journal impact factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, and JIF without self cites. 79.7% HIC journals offered English editing services, compared with 25.0% of LMIC journals. Additionally, 40.0% of HIC journals are solely open access compared with 92.0% in LMICs. Lower journal metrics were seen in LMIC journals, including 2022 mean total articles (107 HICs vs. 60 LMICs), total citations (4296 vs. 751), journal citation indicator (0.88 vs. 0.35), and journal impact factor (12.68 vs. 0.82). We have identified substantial differences in the distribution, English editing services, and journal metrics of HIC journals compared to LMIC journals. These may point to potential barriers to publishing and research access for those in LMICs. To support LMIC research, future work should evaluate opportunities to increase the number of ENT journals in LMICs, expand open access publishing, improve access to language services, and increase LMIC research impact.

ObjectiveClinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine (CERM) converted its language to English only beginning with the first issue of 2011. From that point in time, one of the goals of the journal has been to become a truly international journal. This paper aims to identify the position of CERM in its scholarly journal network based on the journal's metrics.MethodsThe journal's metrics, including citations, countries of author affiliation, and countries of citing authors, Hirsch index, and proportion of funded articles, were gathered from Web of Science and analyzed.ResultsThe two-year impact factor of 2013 was calculated at 0.971 excluding self-citation, which corresponds to a Journal Citation Reports ranking of 85.9% in the category of obstetrics and gynecology. In 2012, 2013, and 2014, the total citations were 17, 68, and 85, respectively. Authors from nine countries contributed to CERM. Researchers from 25 countries cited CERM in their articles. The Hirsch index was six. Out of 88 original articles, 35 studies received funds (39.8%).ConclusionBased on the journal metrics, changing the journal language to English was found to be successful in promoting CERM to international journal status.

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is the main source of bibliometric indicators known by the scientific community. This paper presents the results of a study of the distributions of the first and second significant digits according to Benford’s law (BL) of the number of articles, citations, impact factors, half-life and immediacy index bibliometric indicators in journals indexed in the JCR Sciences and Social Sciences Editions from 2007 to 2014. We also performed the data analysis to country’s origin and by journal’s category, and we verified that the second digit has a better adherence to BL. The use of the second digit is important since it provides a more sound, complete and consistent analysis of the bibliometric indicators.

Background: Journals are currently assessed and ranked using a number of different quantitative performance metrics.Aim: To compare and correlate the publication metrics of English-language occupational therapy journals published in 2015.Method: Bibliometric data was sourced for 14 English-language occupational therapy journals including the Journal Citations Report (JCR) 2-year impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (EFS), Article Influence Score (AIS), Scopus Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Scopus Citescore, and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score. The JCR, Scopus, and SJR 2015 bibliometric data were correlated.Results: The top six English-language occupational therapy journals in relation to JCR IF, EFS, AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score, and SJR IIF were AJOT, AOTJ, POPT, CJOT, SJOT, and BJOT. JCR IF, EFS, JCR AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score and SJR IIF were all significantly correlated with coefficients ranging from 0.751 to 0.961 (p < 0.05; p < 0.01). The calculated SJR IIF was on average 0.335 larger than the JCR IFs reported.Conclusions: The findings indicate that the range of available bibliometric measures should be used collectively to yield a more comprehensive assessment of journal and article rankings rather than the singular use of IF scores that currently and frequently occurs in many jurisdictions.

Editorial

OBJETIVO: Mostrar que alguns índices bibliométricos, como o Fator de Impacto (FI) e a análise de citações, são úteis para avaliação da repercussão científica de publicações psiquiátricas. Tais índices podem também ser empregados na avaliação de produtividade científica individual. MÉTODOS: Os fatores de impacto de periódicos psiquiátricos dos anos de 1995 e 1997 foram obtidos através do "Journal of Citation Reports". As curvas de distribuição foram analisadas através de histogramas e gráficos tipo caixa (box-plots). As médias das avaliações de 1995 e 1997 foram comparadas através do teste de soma de postos de Wilcoxon. RESULTADOS: As curvas de distribuição dos fatores de impacto em 1995 e 1997 mostraram não obedecer a uma distribuição normal. A média de ambas as avaliações girou em torno de 1,5. Houve um aumento significativo na média dos fatores de impacto de 1995 para 1997 ( Wilcoxon W=57 p=0,026). Três periódicos mantiveram os seus fatores de impacto várias vezes acima da média geral em ambas as avaliações ("outliers"): "Archives of General Psychiatry", "American Journal of Psychiatry" e "Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology". CONCLUSÕES: Os fatores de impacto são os melhores índices para avaliação do desempenho científico de publicações psiquiátricas. No entanto, no caso de avaliações da produtividade científica individual, esta também deve ser avaliada através de uma análise de citações.

The JOGC’s Journey to an Impact Factor