Eigenfactor Research Articles

Vadose Zone Journal: The First Ten Years

We proudly present a special section inspired by the 10-year anniversary of Vadose Zone Journal. From the outset, the journal was intended to be different than traditional “soils” journals, with the goal of publishing contributions, reviews, and opinion papers across a broader range of disciplines concerned with the vadose zone, including scientific and societal issues related to the role of vadose zone processes in climate change, biofuels, sustainability, and nanotechnology. Since its inception, Vadose Zone Journal has grown tremendously as a scholarly publication with a strong reputation for high quality and diverse science. Accessible and timely reviews, in addition to technical notes and articles, have secured the journal’s reputation as a definitive and valuable resource for soil scientists, hydrologists, ecologists, hydrogeophysicists, and other earth scientists. The growth of the journal is impressive and is partly reflected by the 2012 impact factor (IF) of 2.20 (5-yr IF of 2.67), ranking eighth in the soil science category, and 16th in the field of water resources. When the article influence score is used as the primary metric, then Vadose Zone Journal ranks fourth in soil science. The success of the journal is also reflected in the editorial board, which is composed of many leading vadose zone scientists from the United States and internationally. The high proportion of scholarly submissions from international scien tists outside of the United States (approximately two-thirds of the manuscripts published) reflects on the status of the Vadose Zone Journal as a multi-disciplinary and multi-national scholarly outlet—an important goal from the outset.

Coercive journal self citations, impact factor, Journal Influence and Article Influence

This paper examines the issue of coercive journal self citations and the practical usefulness of two recent journal performance metrics, namely the Eigenfactor score, which may be interpreted as measuring “Journal Influence”, and the Article Influence score, using the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science (hereafter ISI) data for 2009 for the 200 most highly cited journals in each of the Sciences and Social Sciences. The paper also compares the two new bibliometric measures with two existing ISI metrics, namely Total Citations and the 5-Year Impact Factor (5YIF) (including journal self citations) of a journal. It is shown that the Sciences and Social Sciences are different in terms of the strength of the relationship of journal performance metrics, although the actual relationships are very similar. Moreover, the Journal Influence and Article Influence journal performance metrics are shown to be closely related empirically to the two existing ISI metrics, and hence add little in practical usefulness to what is already known, except for eliminating the pressure arising from coercive journal self citations. These empirical results are compared with existing results in the bibliometrics literature.

Journal impact or usage?

Journal impact or usage?

Comparing the influence of ecology journals using citation-based indices: making sense of a multitude of metrics

The links among scholarly citations creates a tremendous network that reveals patterns of influence and flows of ideas. The systematic evaluation of these networks can be used to create aggregate measures of journal influence. To understand the citation patterns and compare influence among ecology journals, I compiled 11 popular metrics for 110 ecology journals: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year Journal Impact Factor (JIF5), Eigenfactor, Article Influence (AI), Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), SCImago Journal Report (SJR), h-index, hc-index, e-index, g-index, and AR-index. All metrics were positively correlated among ecology journals; however, there was still considerable variation among metrics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and Ecology Letters were the top three journals across metrics on a per article basis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Ecology, and Molecular Ecology had the greatest overall influence on science, as indicated by the Eigenfactor. There was much greater variability among the other metrics because they focus on the mostly highly cited papers from each journal. Each influence metric has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore its own uses. Researchers interested in the average influence of articles in a journal would be best served by referring to AI scores. Despite the usefulness of citation-based metrics, they should not be overly emphasized by publishers and they should be avoided by granting agencies and in personnel decisions. Finally, citation-based metrics only capture one aspect of scientific influence, they do not consider the influence on legislation, land-use practices, public perception, or other effects outside of the publishing network.

WAEA Presidential Address: Deciding Where to Publish: Some Observations on Journal Impact Factor and Article Influence Score

This article provides the history underlying the journal impact factor and weaknesses of this measure to evaluate journal quality. The Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores are suggested as an improved way to compare research quality and impact across disciplines. The network analysis underlying the Eigenfactor approach suggests the agricultural and natural resource economics profession can have a larger impact on the scientific community by directing more research effort towards interdisciplinary work. The Article Influence approach is used to develop a seven-tier system to evaluate research quality, to be used either to guide individual faculty about where to publish their research or to evaluate the research portfolio of a department.

Editorial: Sharing Some Goals

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® has a six-decade history of excellence in orthopaedic publishing. Three legitimate orthopaedic greats – Anthony DePalma, Marshall Urist, and Carl T. Brighton – shaped the journal’s early history. Many more hands are writing CORR’s modern history, including those of the authors who submit manuscripts, the thousands of reviewers and talented editors who make those articles as helpful as possible, and our recently retired Editor-in-Chief, Richard A. Brand MD, who articulated extraordinary standards, then exceeded them. Surgeons and scientists alike recognize Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® as the source for the high-quality literature that enables us to perform our jobs better. Researchers cited articles from CORR® nearly 30,000 times in 2010 [2], and the journal ranks at or near the top of the list of orthopaedic journals for relevance and impact according to any of a number of key metrics [1], including Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score, Content Factor [1], and others. Even so, the time of an editorial transition is an opportunity to articulate some goals going forward: We will favor research that helps surgeons take better care of patients, and we will use features and columns to make more of the world of orthopaedics interesting to a larger number of readers. Many of these are coming in the months ahead; in this issue, we introduce three: Editor’s Spotlight/Take Five “Editor’s Spotlight” is a monthly feature in which we identify a manuscript of particular interest and offer a brief analysis focusing on why the paper should be of interest even outside the subspecialty. In “Take Five,” we interview an author of the Editor’s Spotlight selection to help us delve a little deeper into the work and the process of discovery. Not The Last Word This column explores current pressing issues in our specialty, and will end with several viewpoints on the opinions expressed in the column by other experts on the topic in question. Medicolegal Sidebar This section covers the complexities that arise when the worlds of medicine and jurisprudence intersect. We will cast the widest possible net in terms of bringing our specialty to readers. With the goal of attracting submissions from specialties that have, historically, been underrepresented, we have empanelled a world-class roster of Senior Editors from diverse backgrounds, and are in the process of rounding out our team of Deputy Editors to represent the full breadth of our specialty. We will examine and streamline every possible facet of peer review to make it easier to submit manuscripts to CORR®, to make the process more efficient for authors, and to get the most current information into the hands of readers as quickly as possible. Going forward, I see my role here as serving orthopaedic surgeons, musculoskeletal scientists, and our patients. I hope you will help me do this better by sharing your thoughts about CORR’s content and approaches with me, both candidly and frequently.

Journals' impact and pecking order: tyranny and tyrannosaurs

Journals' impact and pecking order: tyranny and tyrannosaurs

The problems with the subject categories schema in the EigenFactor database from the perspective of ranking journals by their prestige and impact

Purpose – EigenFactor service went through some changes in 2011 before issuing the most current edition (EF‐2010) following the release of the 2010 edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR‐2010) in mid‐2011. Ranking journals by the EigenFactor Score (EFS) and the Article Influence Score (AIS) offered an additional pair of bibliometric indicators to assess the impact of journals in the (sub)disciplinary fields of the sciences and social sciences. In evaluating the clout, importance, and impact of journals it is essential to compare apples to apples, i.e. limiting the assessments to journals belonging to the same (sub)disciplinary areas. This paper aims to examine the quality of the subject categories created for EF‐2010 and of the JCR‐2010 subject categories as implemented within the EigenFactor services.Design/methodology/approach – The paper compares the adequacy of the subject categories in the JCR‐2010 and EF‐2010, examining the assignment of 77 information and library science journals and 50 busin...

Academic Research Journals in Medical Sociology, Medical Anthropology, and Contemporary Social Medicine: A Focus on Public and Global Health

A bibliography of 31 academic journals in medical sociology, medical anthropology, and contemporary social medicine with a focus on public and global health is provided. Along with basic identifying information, the bibliometric measures of Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score, SCImago Journal Rank, and H-index have been specified for each journal when available. Brief annotations along with both Library of Congress and medical subject headings are supplied. Though some limitations are acknowledged, this bibliography serves as a valuable tool for locating and selecting a wide range of periodical scholarship devoted to the social and cultural features of health and medicine.

How are journal impact, prestige and article influence related? An application to neuroscience

The paper analyzes the leading journals in neurosciences using quantifiable research assessment measures (RAM), highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM, shows that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics of highly cited journals, and shows that some other RAM have low correlations with each other, and hence add significant informational value. Alternative RAM are discussed for the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). The RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily include the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor, immediacy (or zero-year impact factor), Eigenfactor score, article influence score, C3PO (citation performance per paper online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (papers ignored by even the authors), 2-year and historical self-citation threshold approval ratings, impact factor inflation, and cited article influence (CAI). The RAM are analyzed for 26 highly cited journals in the ISI category of neurosciences. The paper finds that the Eigenfactor score and PI-BETA are not highly correlated with the other RAM scores, so that they convey additional information regarding journal rankings, that article influence is highly correlated with some existing RAM, so that it has little informative incremental value, and that CAI has additional informational value to that of article influence. Harmonic mean rankings of the 13 RAM criteria for the 26 highly cited journals are also presented. Emphasizing the 2YIF of a journal to the exclusion of other informative RAM criteria is shown to lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence, especially given the informative value of several other RAM.

On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact

Here we study the relationship between journal quartile rankings of ISI impact factor (at the 2010) and journal classification in four impact classes, i.e., highest impact, medium highest impact, medium lowest impact, and lowest impact journals in subject category computer science artificial intelligence. To this aim, we use fuzzy maximum likelihood estimation clustering in order to identify groups of journals sharing similar characteristics in a multivariate indicator space. The seven variables used in this analysis are: (1) Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR); (2) H-Index (H); (3) ISI impact factor (IF); (4) 5-Year Impact Factor (5IF); (5) Immediacy Index (II); (6) Eigenfactor Score (ES); and (7) Article Influence Score (AIS). The fuzzy clustering allows impact classes to overlap, thereby accommodating for uncertainty related to the confusion about the impact class attribution for a journal and vagueness in impact classes definition. This paper demonstrates the complex relationship between quartiles of ISI impact factor and journal impact classes in the multivariate indicator space. And that several indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of structural changes at the score distribution of journals in a subject category. Here we propose it can be performed in a multivariate indicator space using a fuzzy classifier.

AGU journals increase in importance according to 2010 Impact Factors

AGU journals continue to rank highly in many categories in the 2010 Journal Citation Report (JCR), which was released by Thomson Reuters on 28 June. JCR reports on several measures of journal usage, including a journal's Eigenfactor score, its Article Influence score, its Impact Factor, and its rank within a cohort of similar journals. According to the 2010 statistics, AGU again has outperformed its larger competitors. Four different AGU titles are ranked in the top three journals in six different cohorts. The Impact Factor of several AGU journals increased significantly over the previous year.

Journal Quality Metrics: Options to Consider Other Than Impact Factors

Journal quality metrics (also referred to as bibliometrics), such as impact factors, are increasingly being used as a measure of researchers' and educators' success and prestige. Occupational therapists who submit articles to peer-reviewed journals may face a professional and research dilemma: Do they submit their articles to journals that largely have a professional audience and potentially do not have an impact factor, or do they opt not to publish their research material in occupational therapy-oriented journals? Occupational therapy authors can consider other journal quality metric alternatives, in addition to the impact factor option, including the Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, h-index, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP), and discipline-specific generated journal quality measures. These other journal quality metrics can be important reference points for occupational therapists who publish and may encourage authors to publish in journals relevant to the discipline. This process, in turn, will build the occupational therapy body of knowledge as well as provide an essential, growing reference source for evidence-based practice.

Letter from the Editors

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (AP&T) enjoyed an eventful year in 2010: a much better Impact Factor, an improved design for the journal and our rapid publication record getting even more impressive. The Impact Factor obsesses all editors of scientific journals. There are several ways of comparing the popularity of journals – Impact Factor, Eigen Factor, SciImago Journal Rank and H-index – and, although they produce different scores for every journal, the rank order of the journals in Gastroenterology and Hepatology remains virtually identical. AP&T’s 2009 Impact Factor rose from 3.710 to 4.357. This places AP&T 12/65 of all Gastroenterology journals (up two places); nine of the 11 journals ahead of us had a lower IF for 2009, so our improvement was not due to a general inflation of scores. AP&T’s Impact Factor is all the more impressive in that the journal is independent and not controlled by any society – it has no captive readership that receives every copy of every issue: those who read and cite AP&T do so because they find it useful and enjoyable. Most access to AP&T is online and about 4000 hospitals, universities and organisations are subscribers, and it is available online free (or at very low cost) in over further 4000 libraries in the developing world. Eighteen months after publication, all articles are made open-access for anyone with access to the Internet. The journal’s re-design was to improve readability – not least by the use of a modest application of colour, especially useful for reading complicated tables. We think it is even easier to read, and it looks very modern and handsome! Authors are the Number One priority for the editors and AP&T production team at Wiley-Blackwell – we are undoubtedly the fastest journal in Gastroenterology or Hepatology. For our final issue of 2010, published online on 2 November 2010, but dated 1 December 2010, the median time between submission and first decision of the articles was 18 days (range: 17–36 days). The median publication schedule of these articles after acceptance between 18 August and 30 September 2010 was as follows: Early View – 21 days (range: 7–25 days) Publication of the complete issue online – 6 weeks (range: 4–8 weeks) Publication on the complete issue on paper – 8 weeks (range: 6–10 weeks). This schedule is even faster than the standard that we have maintained for several years. We are certain that quality is not compromised by this speed – it reflects the enormous commitment of our reviewers (at least two for most papers) who, in addition, donated £15 520 (US$24 905 or €17 263 at 05.01.10 exchange rates) to Médecins Sans Frontières in place of any fee. We are aware that authors really appreciate their work being published without any delay. From August 2010, we stopped publishing the ‘raw’ Word documents that were precisely as they had been accepted 48 h earlier by the editors. We moved to publishing the edited, type-set, author-approved, editor-approved final proofs of each article, as Early View articles, 1–3 weeks after acceptance. We are confident that the time to publication will shorten – especially if our authors return their proofs as soon as possible! This amazing achievement is entirely due to the dedication and efficiency of our production teams in Singapore (Kuthsiyya Peer Mohamed and Siti Rosemasni Ab Hadi) and India (Gayathri C.). No competing journal comes close to providing this level of service to their authors and readers. Finally, the latest changes in our editorial team – still expertly organised and guided by Mrs Doris Edwards – Professors Joseph Sung and Susie Kane, and Dr Alex Ford. No sooner had Joseph started as an Associate Editor at AP&T than he was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Chinese University in Hong Kong; we felt that with such an awesome responsibility, he could not be expected to chase reluctant authors and reviewers on our behalf. Susie Kane from Rochester, USA filled his role at AP&T in May 2010. Dr Alex Ford from Leeds, UK, joins us in January 2011 initially to act as Letters Editor – reflecting our belief that the Letters to the Editors are a vital final step in peer-review, aiming not only to criticise but also to praise and discuss articles that have appeared in AP&T. One major change is planned for 2011, but that’s still under wraps! The journal itself will remain on a steady course, and we look forward to your continued support for another year.

The Future of SLEEP at www.journalsleep.org

THE JOURNAL SLEEP CONTINUES TO HAVE THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF CITATIONS, IMPACT FACTOR, AND ARTICLE INFLUENCE SCORE AMONG ORIGINAL science journals that focus on sleep (the 2009 impact factor is 5.402 and the 5-year impact factor is 5.949). The journal remains committed to adapting to the changing landscape of scientific techniques and standards, to the global expansion of sleep medicine and public health demands for evidenced-based practices, and most recently, to the tremendous expansion of technologies that permit electronic publishing and electronic access to scientific information. SLEEP remains the preeminent journal for the sleep science and sleep medicine fields. However, increasingly the operational costs of SLEEP outweigh revenue. This is a reality faced by many biomedical journals, and SLEEP is not an exception. The costs associated with printing and mailing publications continue to rise each year—for example, the U.S. Postal Service recently announced it will institute an 8% increase to periodical postage for 2011. Over the past three years, efforts have been made to economize SLEEP: reduced margins, lighter paperweight, and supplemental online figures and tables. During the same time period, revenue from advertising decreased substantially. To deal with these economic realities and take advantage of new options for electronic information delivery, SLEEP, beginning in January 2011, will be offered online as a benefit to members of the AASM and SRS as well as subscribers. An option for a fee-based print subscription will also be available starting with the January 2011 issue. To ensure that SLEEP online serves the needs of our readers, we have redesigned and rebuilt www.journalsleep.org. Beginning 2011, the website will include a great deal more journal content, along with improved navigation and organization to make it faster and easier for readers to find the essential information that they want. New options will be provided that deliver the latest research on sleep in a convenient on-screen format. The website will also allow for continued expansion as we explore integration of new technologies that improve the reader's experience. The following are some of the improvements that will be available at www.journalsleep.org in the coming months. The SLEEP website is HTML-based, which integrates content better. The new website has a clean design, and includes improved functions so readers can access information easier. Tabs within an article allow readers to move easily from the abstract to full text, to references, and to the PDF version of a paper. Figures and tables are easy to enlarge and read. References within an article are hyperlinked. An improved search engine provides the most comprehensive results, making for easier access to the most relevant articles on a topic. The My CME Credits system allows access to a comprehensive list of available credits and to credits already earned. A table of contents sent via e-mail keeps AASM and SRS members abreast of science published every month. We believe that users will find the new www.journalsleep.org useful, attractive, and efficient. The updated SLEEP website is the first step toward improved access to the journal. We expect the site will undergo additional changes as needs develop and new capabilities emerge through electronic innovation. The new website is the latest in a line of improvements made to ensure SLEEP presents easy access to leading science. Consistent with this goal, we have made other changes in recent years that include SLEEP being listed in PubMed Central; providing free public access to electronic copies of SLEEP articles 6 months after publication (SRS and AASM members have immediate access from the website); and improved handling of manuscripts to reduce the time to decision.1 We recognize that the continued proliferation of electronic delivery modes that replace traditional paper-based systems requires thoughtful adaptation relative to scientific journals. The updated SLEEP website is just one part of our continuing commitment to adapt to important and useful changes in information technology that can facilitate the delivery of our scientific information. There is no denying that social networks, intranets, mobile applications, handheld computers, e-readers, text messaging, etc. are changing how people communicate and acquire information as scientists, physicians, trainees, students, patients, policy makers, media, and consumers. SLEEP must embrace the optimal utilization of appropriate electronic technologies as part of its commitment to excellence and global dissemination of scientific knowledge. The updated website is the first step in that process.

Differences in the rank position of journals by Eigenfactor metrics and the five‐year impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports and the Eigenfactor Project web site

PurposeThe traditional, annually issued Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have been enhanced since the 2007 edition by the Eigenfactor Scores (EFS), the Article Influence Scores (AIS) and the five‐year Journal Impact Factor (JIF‐5). This paper aims to focus on the issues.Design/methodology/approachThese scientometric indicators are also available from the Eigenfactor Project web site that uses data from the yearly updates of the JCR.FindingsAlthough supposedly identical data sources are used for computing the metrics, there are differences in the absolute scores reported, which in turn resulted in significant (more than ten rank positions) changes for several journals in the sample.Originality/valueThe differences in the scores and rank positions by the three new scientometric indicators of 52 journals in the Information and Library Science category were analysed to determine the range of differences and the extent of changes in rank positions.

Strong Showing for AGU Journals in 2009 Impact Factors

AGU publishes great science, which is recognized in several ways. One of the most widely recognized is from Thomson Reuters, which provides the Journal Citation Report (JCR) each year as a component of the Web of Science®. JCR reports on several measures of journal usage, including a journal's Eigenfactor score, its Article Influence score, its Impact Factor, and its rank within a cohort of similar journals.According to the 2009 statistics released last week, AGU again has outperformed its larger competitors. For the twelfth time, two different AGU titles hold the top rank in their categories, and AGU titles hold the second spot in two other categories and third in two more.

Mean citation rate per article in mathematics journals: Differences from the scientific model

AbstractThis paper analyzes the applicability of the article mean citation rate measures in theScience Citation Index Journal Citation Reports(SCI JCR) to the five JCR mathematical subject categories. These measures are the traditional 2‐year impact factor as well as the recently added 5‐year impact factor and 5‐year article influence score. Utilizing the 2008 SCI JCR, the paper compares the probability distributions of the measures in the mathematical categories to the probability distribution of a scientific model of impact factor distribution. The scientific model distribution is highly skewed, conforming to the negative binomial type, with much of the variance due to the important role of review articles in science. In contrast, the three article mean citation rate measures' distributions in the mathematical categories conformed to either the binomial or Poisson, indicating a high degree of randomness. Seeking reasons for this, the paper analyzes the bibliometric structure of Mathematics, finding it a disjointed discipline of isolated subfields with a weak central core of journals, reduced review function, and long cited half‐life placing most citations beyond the measures' time limits. These combine to reduce the measures' variance to one commensurate with random error. However, the measures were found capable of identifying important journals. Using data from surveys of the Louisiana State University (LSU) faculty, the paper finds a higher level of consensus among mathematicians and others on which are the important mathematics journals than the measures indicate, positing that much of the apparent randomness may be due to the measures' inapplicability to mathematical disciplines. Moreover, tests of the stability of impact factor ranks across a 5‐year time span suggested that the proper model for Mathematics is the negative binomial.

The Eigenfactor MetricsTM: A Network Approach to Assessing Scholarly Journals

Limited time and budgets have created a legitimate need for quantitative measures of scholarly work. The well-known journal impact factor is the leading measure of this sort; here we describe an alternative approach based on the full structure of the scholarly citation network. The Eigenfactor Metrics—Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score—use an iterative ranking scheme similar to Google’s PageRank algorithm. By this approach, citations from top journals are weighted more heavily than citations from lower-tier publications. Here we describe these metrics and the rankings that they provide.

Eigenfactor and article influence scores in the Journal Citation Reports

PurposeThis sequel to the earlier testing and evaluation of the five‐year Journal Impact Factor (JIF‐5) in the enhanced version of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (released in January and July 2009 for the 2007 and 2008 journal collections, respectively) seeks to assess and compare the impact on the ranking of journals by two other performance indicators.Design/methodology/approachBoth the Eigenfactor Score (EFS) and the Article Influence Score (AIS) use a five‐year target window in the algorithm to quantify the scholarly impact at the overall journal level and at the article level, respectively.FindingsThe paper examines how the rank positions of 52 library and information science journals change when the set of journals are ranked by the Eigenfactor metrics in relation to the JIF‐5 indicator.Originality/valueThe principle behind Google's PageRank is where a web page or site got ranked in the search results based not merely on the number of incoming links, but also on the status/prestige of the linking sites based on the PageRank scores of those linking sites. This is a recursively calculated permanent value until the next year's edition.