5-year Impact Factor Research Articles

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis

ObjectivesTo assess HIV/AIDS research productivity in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), and the structural level factors associated with levels of HIV/AIDS research productivity.MethodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted...

Management Learning: The journal for critical, reflexive scholarship on organization and learning

The journal’s 2-year impact factor currently stands at 1.25 and the 5-year impact factor at 1.89 in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (2014). In terms of 5-year trends, the journal’s mean 2-year impact factor stands at a healthy 1.37. As far as journal quality lists go, we await with interest the outcome of the revision to the United Kingdom’s Association of Business School (ABS) journal quality list to see how things stand. Further afield, the Australian Business Dean’s Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List (2013) rated Management Learning as an ‘A’ journal. However, the ABDC is right to remind us that journal lists should be only a starting point for assessing quality, and that there is no substitute for assessing the scholarship of a piece of work on a case-by-case basis. In this latter regard, the outcome of the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework (unknown at the time of writing this Editorial) may also shed light on the quality, impact, and relevance of Management Learning scholarship. Management Learning has a long and respected history, the first issue being published in 1970 under the name of Management Education and Development. In 1994, the journal title changed to Management Learning, and in 2009, we celebrated our 40 th anniversary. We entered our fifth decade with the conviction and optimism that the type of scholarship the journal publishes “continues to be different” from the scholarship to be found in the mainstream management journals or that of the journals we consider our closest “relatives.” Perhaps better known in the UK, Australasia and Europe, we continually seek to expand our reach to North America and Asia to provide a forum for scholars wishing to challenge mainstream work. But we still struggle against the perception that we are a pedagogic teaching and learning journal—which clearly we are not. Rather, we publish innovative critical and reflexive scholarly work around learning, managing, and organizing—a philosophy that can be traced back to Mark Easterby-Smith and Mike Pedler’s 1986 Editorial, when in

Quality weighted citations versus total citations in the sciences and social sciences, with an application to finance and accounting

Purpose – Both journal self-citations and exchanged citations have the effect of increasing a journal’s impact factor, which may be deceptive. The purpose of this paper is to analyse academic journal quality and research impact using quality-weighted citations vs total citations, based on the widely used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality-weighted citations. Design/methodology/approach – The new index is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the sciences and social sciences, as well as finance and accounting, using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative transformations of citations. Findings – It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to 2-year impact factor (2YIF) and other well-known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well-known RAMs for both the sciences and social sciences, and finance and accounting. Practical implications – Journals can, and do, inflate the number of citations through self-citation practices, which may be coercive. Another method for distorting journal impact is through a set of journals agreeing to cite each other, that is, by exchanging citations. This may be less coercive than self-citations, but is nonetheless unprofessional and distortionary. Social implications – The premise underlying the use of citations data is that higher quality journals generally have a higher number of citations. The impact of citations can be distorted in a number of ways, both consciously and unconsciously. Originality/value – Regardless of whether self-citations arise through collusive practices, the increase in citations will affect both 2YIF and 5-year impact factor (5YIF), though not Eigenfactor and Article Influence. This leads to an ICQ, where a higher ICQ would generally be preferred to lower. Unlike 5YIF, which is increased by journal self-citations and exchanged citations, and Eigenfactor and Article Influence, both of which are affected by quality-weighted exchanged citations, ICQ will be less affected by exchanged citations. In the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, 5YIF and AI are assumed to be affected similarly by exchanged citations.

Bibliometric trends in ophthalmology 1997-2009.

Aims:To track citation patterns in ophthalmic journals and contrast them with major medical and surgical journals from 1997 to 2009. In addition, we want to familiarize the ophthalmic community with bibliometrics indices.Materials and Methods:Data retrieved from Institute for Scientific Information and related websites include 2-year journal impact factor JIF, 5-year impact, Eigenfactor score, H-factor, Article Influence score, and SCImago factor.Results:JIF rose steadily around 10% annually in ophthalmic journals, and likewise for major medical and surgical journals. JIF correlated with recent bibliometric indicators like 5-year impact, H index, and SCImago factor but not with Eigenfactor. Ophthalmic journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics ranked at the top for JIF, while subspecialty journals tended to have low JIF. JIF of subspecialty journal Retina rose from 0.740 (rank 23) in 2000 to 3.088 in 2007 (rank 6).Conclusions:JIF tends to rise annually by 10% in medical, surgical, and ophthalmic fields. Journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics rank at the top for JIF. The rapid rise of JIF for Retina unlike other subspecialties that stayed status quo is multifactorial: Change in editorial policies (introduction of review articles and omission of case reports) and technological advances in the retinal field.

Minutes of the Business Meeting of the American Pancreatic Association, Friday, November 1, 2013, Miami, Florida

Author(s): Freeman, M; Pandol, SJ; Liddle, RA; Saluja, AK; Fernandez-Del Castillo, C; Maitra, A; Sahin-Toth, M; Go, VL

Comparing 'papers cited rates' with other measures for science journal evaluation

Thirty-six ophthalmology journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 2003 were selected to study the role of the ‘papers cited rate’ in scientific journal evaluation. The 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year cited rates of these papers were calculated to analyze statistically the correlations with impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, article influence score, and total cites. The results of questionnaires sent to 8,525 ophthalmologists were used to analyse the correlations between the papers cited rates for different years and traditional bibliometric indicators. The results showed that eigenfactor score and total cites were better than other indicators, and impact factor was better than the 5-year impact factor. The 2-year and 3-year cited rates of papers were reasonable for evaluating science journals, and the 2-year cited rate was better than the 3-year cited rate. The 5-year (and more than 5 years) cited rates were not significant in evaluating science journals.

How robust are journal rankings based on the impact factor? Evidence from the economic sciences

Abstract It is well-known that the distribution of citations to articles in a journal is skewed. We ask whether journal rankings based on the impact factor are robust with respect to this fact. We exclude the most cited paper, the top 5 and 10 cited papers for 100 economics journals and recalculate the impact factor. Afterwards we compare the resulting rankings with the original ones from 2012. Our results show that the rankings are relatively robust. This holds both for the 2-year and the 5-year impact factor.

Report to the Readership

This issue marks the beginning of our sixth year as editors of Exceptional Children (EC). We are pleased to announce that EC has moved to a new portal site with Sage for submission of manuscripts (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ecx) and where online versions of accepted manuscripts will appear before the hard copy publication (http://ecx.sagepub.com/). This feature will allow much more rapid full access to all accepted manuscripts for the entire field. EC presently has an impact factor of 1.941, and a 5-year impact factor of 2.943, which makes it presently among the most widely cited special education print journals according to Thomson Reuters. This is an excellent rating for the journal, and we hope that EC will be able to continue to maintain a high level of visibility. Since the past Report to the Readership, EC has received 154 manuscript submissions via the portal site (predominantly, the site managed by BePress). Twenty-eight manuscripts were accepted and published in volume 80, yielding an 18.2% acceptance rate. The average number of days from initial receipt of a manuscript meeting publication guidelines to an initial decision was 65.5. All manuscripts that were accepted had initially received a decision of revise and resubmit. The time from initial decision to author resubmissions ranged from one month to more than a year. We are always interested in receiving additional submissions, particularly outstanding manuscripts that describe methods for improving the social and academic functioning of exceptional individuals. EC continues to publish articles representing diversity in topics, methodology, and populations. Volume 80 has maintained this tradition by including articles addressing social-behavioral functioning, reading, writing, math, language, and social studies, as well as other topics, including the combined areas of academics and behavioral functioning, teachers, placement, legal issues, attitudes, technology, response to intervention, general special education, and research issues. Figure 1 displays these main focus areas, and Figure 2 shows these areas collapsed across similar categories. A wide range of populations was addressed in Volume 80. Articles addressed populations who were at risk, autistic, or deaf and hard of hearing, as well as those who had mild disabilities, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, or behavioral disorders; articles further included teachers or administrators of special and general education (see Figure 3). Race and ethnicity were distributed among participants in the research, including White, African American, Hispanic American, Native American, and Asian American, as well as those of mixed race or ethnicity. Figure 4 provides information on participants' grade levels. Volume 80 of EC predominantly published research articles. Overall, articles included group experimental, quasi-experimental, and single-subject intervention research; qualitative and descriptive research; meta-analyses and review papers; and policy and assessment papers. Figure 5 displays the percentages by article type. …

Robust Ranking of Journal Quality: An Application to Economics

The article focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact in general, and in economics, in particular, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). The article analyzes 299 leading international journals in economics using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative transformations of citations and influence. All existing RAMs to date have been static, so two new dynamic RAMs are developed to capture changes in impact factor over time and escalating journal self-citations. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine When, Where, and How (frequently) published articles are cited (see Chang et al., 2011a–c). The RAMs are grouped in four distinct classes that include impact factor, mean citations, and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality articles, journal influence, and article influence. These classes include the most widely used RAMs, namely, the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self-citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence, h-index, and Papers Ignored–By Even The Authors (PI-BETA). As all existing RAMs to date have been static, two new dynamic RAMs are developed to capture changes in impact factor over time (5YD2 = 5YIF/2YIF) and Escalating Self-Citations (ESC). We highlight robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of RAMs across the four classes. It is shown that emphasizing the 2YIF of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published articles are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published articles are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal quality, impact, and influence relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks.

Efforts begin to sprout: publications in JCSM on cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle wasting receive attention.

Efforts begin to sprout: publications in JCSM on cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle wasting receive attention.

Publication rates of editorial board members in oral health journals.

The aim of this study was to measure the publication rate of editorial board members in their board journals and to evaluate associated variables. We evaluated the ten highest-ranked journals according to the 5-year impact factor under 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine' subject category for 2010, 2011, and 2012. All original research papers with at least one member of the editorial board as author were counted. Final analyses assessed associated variables such as size of the editorial board, number of papers published each year, and each journal's impact factor. Overall, there was an increase in the average number of articles published from 2010 (115.2 ± 52.2) to 2012 (134.7 ± 47.4). The number and percentage of articles published with editorial board members as authors over the three years did not follow the same pattern, with a slight decrease from 2010 to 2011 and an increase in 2012. The number of articles with editorial board members as authors was significantly higher for journals with impact factors ≥4.0. Journals with a higher impact factor and larger editorial board were associated with higher chances of editorial board members publishing in their respective journals. Participation of editorial board members as authors in publishing varies significantly among journals.

The impact factor of Plant and Soil reached a record of 3.235

Many of you will have noticed that the Impact Factor of Plant and Soil has risen steadily over the past decade and that it is now 3.235. It ranks third in a total of 33 journals in the category ‘Soil Science’, or second if the ‘5-year Impact Factor’ is used or if a correction is made for ‘Journal Self Cites’. Some journals are very keen on their authors citing recent papers published in their own journal to boost their Impact Factor which is a practice Plant and Soil does not support. Other journals boost their Impact Factor by publishing reviews at the beginning of the year, aiming to maximise citations in the subsequent 2 years. Plant and Soil publishes its prestigious Marschner Reviews, which are important for our readers, but citations to these reviews represent only 3% of the total citations. What this shows is that the Impact Factor of Plant and Soil is real, and not generated by a few tricks that are common in the trade. In the much larger category of ‘Agronomy’, Plant and Soil ranks seventh in a total of 107 journals, and in the even larger category of ‘Plant Sciences’, it ranks 32 among 196 journals. It is not (yet) ranked in ‘Ecology’, but had it been ranked there, it would be at very respectable position 38 among 141 journals (if Plant and Soil had already been added to the current list of 140). In recent years, an increasing number of papers with a focus on soil and plant ecology have been published in Plant and Soil, and the new Impact Factor makes it a very attractive journal for many ecologists, who obviously frequently cite papers from Plant and Soil. Plant and Soil is a firmly established international journal for research that enhances our mechanistic understanding of plant-soil interactions, appealing to ecologists, plant scientists, soil scientists and agronomists. We wish to remain at the forefront of that focused area, rather than cover all aspects of plant and soil science, and make further improvements wherever possible. Our Board of Section Editors and Consulting Editors is continually renewed to cover major areas, including molecular aspects of plant-microbe interactions. When checking the list of our Editors, you will notice that we are well prepared to deal with manuscripts on root physiology, soil ecology, soil physics, soil biochemistry, symbiotic and pathogenic interactions, rhizosphere biology, root biochemistry and effects of global change on soil-plant interactions. We also welcome manuscripts with a strong anatomical or modelling component. Plant and Soil continues to publish prestigious Marschner Reviews (by invitation only) and other reviews, which cover areas of interest to our readers. We also offer the opportunity of publishing ‘commentaries’ as well as ‘opinion papers’. To emphasise our scope and policy, we will continue to place a photograph on the front cover of each issue, pertaining to an important article preferably in that issue of Plant and Soil. We encourage authors to submit illustrative material with their manuscripts. Major developments are to be expected in the interface of plant and soil sciences, often referred to as ‘the Plant Soil (2014) 383:1–2 DOI 10.1007/s11104-014-2236-0

Facts Are More Important Than Novelty

Despite increased attention to methodological rigor in education research, the field has focused heavily on experimental design and not on the merit of replicating important results. The present study analyzed the complete publication history of the current top 100 education journals ranked by 5-year impact factor and found that only 0.13% of education articles were replications. Contrary to previous findings in medicine, but similar to psychology, the majority of education replications successfully replicated the original studies. However, replications were significantly less likely to be successful when there was no overlap in authorship between the original and replicating articles. The results emphasize the importance of third-party, direct replications in helping education research improve its ability to shape education policy and practice.

Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review.

BackgroundObservational studies dominate the surgical literature. Statistical adjustment is an important strategy to account for confounders in observational studies. Research has shown that published articles are often poor in statistical quality, which may jeopardize their conclusions. The Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) guidelines have been published to help establish standards for statistical reporting.This study will seek to determine whether the quality of statistical adjustment and the reporting of these methods are adequate in surgical observational studies. We hypothesize that incomplete reporting will be found in all surgical observational studies, and that the quality and reporting of these methods will be of lower quality in surgical journals when compared with medical journals. Finally, this work will seek to identify predictors of high-quality reporting.Methods/DesignThis work will examine the top five general surgical and medical journals, based on a 5-year impact factor (2007–2012). All observational studies investigating an intervention related to an essential component area of general surgery (defined by the American Board of Surgery), with an exposure, outcome, and comparator, will be included in this systematic review. Essential elements related to statistical reporting and quality were extracted from the SAMPL guidelines and include domains such as intent of analysis, primary analysis, multiple comparisons, numbers and descriptive statistics, association and correlation analyses, linear regression, logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard analysis, analysis of variance, survival analysis, propensity analysis, and independent and correlated analyses. Each article will be scored as a proportion based on fulfilling criteria in relevant analyses used in the study. A logistic regression model will be built to identify variables associated with high-quality reporting. A comparison will be made between the scores of surgical observational studies published in medical versus surgical journals. Secondary outcomes will pertain to individual domains of analysis. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted.DiscussionThis study will explore the reporting and quality of statistical analyses in surgical observational studies published in the most referenced surgical and medical journals in 2013 and examine whether variables (including the type of journal) can predict high-quality reporting.

JUST HOW GOOD ARE THE TOP THREE JOURNALS IN FINANCE? AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON QUANTITY AND QUALITY CITATIONS

The paper is concerned with ranking academic journal quality and research impact in Finance, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI (2013) Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI). The paper analyses the 89 leading international journals in the ISI category of "Business–Finance" using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs). The analysis highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, all of which are based on alternative transformations of journal citations and impact. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine the citations frequency of published papers that are cited in journals listed in ISI. The RAMs include the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Immediacy including journal self citations, Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence (AI), h-index, Papers Ignored-By Even The Authors (PI-BETA), Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR), 5YD2 (namely, 5YIF divided by 2YIF), Escalating Self Citations (ESC) and Index of Citation Quality (ICQ). The paper calculates the harmonic mean (HM) of the ranks of up to 16 RAMs. It is shown that emphasizing 2YIF to the exclusion of other informative RAMs can lead to a misleading evaluation of journal quality and impact relative to the HM of the ranks. The analysis of the 89 ISI journals in Finance makes it clear that there are three leading journals in Finance, namely Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics and Review of Financial Studies, which form an exclusive club in terms of the RAMs that measure journal quality and impact based on alternative measures of journal citations. The next two journals in Finance in terms of overall quality and impact are Journal of Accounting and Economics and Journal of Monetary Economics. As Accounting does not have a separate classification in ISI, the tables of rankings given in the paper are also used to rank the top 3 journals in the sub-category of Accounting in the ISI category of "Business – Finance", namely Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Review, and Journal of Accounting Research.

A Discussão Epistemológica em Marketing 1990-2010

O presente estudo investiga o quanto a discusso epistemolgica em marketing tem estado presente nos peridicos da disciplina nos ltimos 20 anos. Com este objetivo, foi realizada uma anlise bibliomtrica nos 5 principais journals da rea (Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology) e em mais duas publicaes escolhidas por seu perfil editorial (Marketing Theory e Marketing Science). Foram analisados artigos, comentrios e editoriais publicados entre 1990 e 2010. Igualmente foram buscados livros editados sobre a disciplina e que pudessem conter discusses acerca da epistemologia em marketing. A anlise dos dados revelou uma inconstncia na quantidade de publicaes sobre o tema, bem como o destaque de dois peridicos (Marketing Theory e Marketing Science) identificados como aqueles que capitanearam o debate no perodo. A quantidade proporcional de artigos encontrados revela que os momentos de discusso sobre epistemologia aconteceram por esforos isolados de peridicos ou de uma editora (Sage), e no por um debate fomentado por diversos acadmicos. Por ltimo, a grande quantidade de publicaes encontradas sobre metodologia, e no sobre epistemologia, pode estar evidenciando uma tendncia instrumentalizao da disciplina. O trabalho dividido como segue: Introduo; (1) Os primrdios do estudo de marketing, onde buscamos entender a histria da disciplina; (2) O surgimento do marketing como disciplina, em que descrevemos como o marketing foi formalmente aceito como rea de estudo; (3) Marketing e cincia, uma rpida retomada do debate sobre cientificidade em marketing; (4) Mtodo; (5) Resultados; Discusso e concluso.DOI: 10.5585/remark.v13i1.2378

Ranking Economics and Econometrics ISI Journals by Quality Weighted Citations

Abstract The paper analyses academic journal quality and impact using quality weighted citations that are based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A recently developed Index of Citations Quality (ICQ), based on quality weighted citations, is used to analyse the top 276 Economics and top 10 Econometrics journals in the ISI Economics category using alternative quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs). It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to the 2-Year Impact Factor (2YIF) and other well known RAMs available in ISI for the purpose of evaluating journal impact and quality, as well as ranking, of Economics and Econometrics journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in alternative well-known RAMs. Among other findings, the top Econometrics journals have some of the highest ICQ scores in the ISI category of Economics.

How Should Journal Quality be Ranked?An Application to Agricultural, Energy, Environmental and Resource Economics

The Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI) category of Economics has one of the largest numbers of journals, at 304 (as of 2011) and 333 (as of 2013), of any ISI discipline, and hence has wide coverage. The paper analyses the leading international journals in the Economics sub-disciplines of Agricultural, Energy, Environmental and Resource Economics using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs),and highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAMs.The RAMs are based on alternative transformations of citations and influence taken from the ISI database. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to answer the perennial questions as to When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited. The RAMs include the most widely used RAM, namely the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), 2-year Self-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (2Y-STAR),HistoricalSelf-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (H-STAR), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). As data are not available for 5YIF, Article Influence and CAI for one of the 20 journals considered, 13 RAMsare analysed for 19 highly-cited journals in Agricultural, Energy, Environmental and Resource Economics in the ISI category of Economics. The harmonic mean of the ranksof the 13 RAMs for the 19 highly-cited journals are also presented. It is shown that emphasizing the 2-year impact factor of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal impact and influence relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks. The 'age' effect of journals, that is, the number of years for which the journals have been included in ISI, on the RAMs is also examined to check whether the RAMs are being compared fairly.

Extending citer analysis to journal impact evaluation

The concept of citer analysis investigated earlier by Ajiferuke and Wolfram (In: B. Larsen, J. Leta (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI) pp. 798–808, 2009, Scientometrics 83:623–638, 2010) is extended to journals where different citing units (citers, citing articles, citing journals) are compared with the journal impact factor and each other to determine if differences in ranking arise from different measures. The citer measures for the 31 high impact journals studied from information science and library science are significantly correlated, even more so than the earlier citer analysis findings, indicating that there is a close relationship among the different units of measure. Still, notable differences in rankings for the journals examined were evident for the different measures used, especially from either 5-year impact factor or number of citing articles per publication to the number of citing journals per publication. The journals that are adversely affected seem to be those whose citations are concentrated in a few journals. This informed the need to develop a journal citation concentration index, which can serve as a complementary measure to the existing journal impact indices.

Correlation among the citation indices of Korean scientific journals listed in international databases

We would like to verify the correlation among various citation indicators of 62 Korean scientific journals listed in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. From a total of 85 Korean journals listed in both WoS as of January 2013, and 132 journals listed in Scopus as of 2011, 62 Korean journals listed in both citation indices were selected for analysis. Citation index indicators selected for analysis include impact factor (IF), 5-year impact factor (5yrIF), Eigenfactor score (EF), article influence score (AIS) (list of WoS indicators), SCImago journal rank (SJR), h-index, and impact index (ImIndex) (list of Scopus indicators). It took an average of eight years for a newly founded journal to be listed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Since the IF, ImIndex, and AIS values failed to exceed 1.0, Korean journals’ popularity and prestige were confirmed to be minimal. Analyzed journals that were written in English exhibited higher SJR and h-index values than ones written in Korean. WoS’ IF exhibited a correlation with WoS’ 5yrIF, EF, AIS, and Scopus’ SJR, h-index, and ImIndex. Since the ‘popularity and prestige of Korean journals’ have been confirmed to be minimal, steps must be taken to improve this status. Popularity-based indicators have been shown to strongly correlate with prestige-based indicators in Korean science journals. Therefore, there must be a strategic approach taken to improve IF values.