The influence of references per paper in the SCI to Impact Factors and the Matthew Effect

Biglu, Mohammad-Hossein

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1815-8

Cited by 52 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these are: the number of self-citations [5], a journal’s accessibility due to open-access politics [6], and extensive marketing [7]. The inflation rate does not necessarily reflect the scientific productivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Aggregate Impact Factor Inflation in Ophthalmology

Caramoy¹,

Korwitz

Eppelin

et al. 2012

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyze the aggregate impact factor (AIF) in ophthalmology, its inflation rate, and its relation to other subject fields. Methods: A retrospective, database review of all subject fields in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Science edition. Citation data, AIF, number of journals and citations from the years 2003–2011 were analyzed. Data were retrieved from JCR. Future trends were calculated using a linear regression method. Results: The AIF varies considerably between subjects. It shows also an inflation rate, which varies annually. The AIF inflation rate in ophthalmology was not as high as the background AIF inflation rate. Conclusions: The AIF inflation rate caused the AIF to increase annually. Not considering these variations in the AIF between years and between fields will make the AIF as a bibliometric tool inappropriate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Aggregate Impact Factor Inflation in Ophthalmology

Caramoy¹,

Korwitz

Eppelin

et al. 2012

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A positive correlation is observed between average impact factor IF5 (5 years) and the average number of references. The correlation coefficient and corresponding R-Square using 2006 data are shown in Table 1 (see also Biglu, 2008). This effect partly explains the discrepancy of impact between, for example, fundamental biology and mathematics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor

Zitt

Small

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

179

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new approach to the field normalization of the classical journal impact factor is introduced. This approach, called the audience factor, takes into consideration the citing propensity of journals for a given cited journal, specifically, the mean number of references of each citing journal, and fractionally weights the citations from those citing journals. Hence, the audience factor is a variant of a fractional citation-counting scheme, but computed on the citing journal rather than the citing article or disciplinary level, and, in contrast to other cited-side normalization strategies, is focused on the behavior of the citing entities. A comparison with standard journal impact factors from Thomson Reuters shows a more diverse representation of fields within various quintiles of impact, significant movement in rankings for a number of individual journals, but nevertheless a high overall correlation with standard impact factors.

show abstract

“…Research has shown; however, that there can be negative effects or consequences attached to ranking or classifying channels of communication, especially with respect to journals. (Bonitz, Bruckner, & Scharnhorst, 1997;Larivière & Gingras 2010;Biglu, 2008). One problem is the so-called Matthew Effect, which occurs when scholars decide to publish in highly ranked journals, simply because of their rank and not for any other reason related to their subject area or targeted audience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%