Bradford’s law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations

Fernández-Llimós, Fernando

doi:10.18549/pharmpract.2014.03.842

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, the IF value is highly affected by the skewness in the data distribution introduced by only a small fraction of highly-cited papers in a journal (Lozano et al 2012 ; Larivière et al 2016 ). Some journals have discontinued its use and some countries have recently restricted the use of the SCI system in academic evaluations (Verma 2015 ; Fernandez-Llimos 2016 ; Qian et al 2020 ; Zhu 2020 ). The trend of JFR’s metrics over the recent years, however, suggests an upward trajectory of the journal’s impact and visibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Agathokleous

2021

J. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? In this paper, a young, senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing. He covers major information you need to know during the entire process, from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper. He introduces key points for consideration, such as avoidance of predatory journals, dubious research practices and ethics, interaction with peers, reviewers, and editors, and the pursuit of aretê. Finally, he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions, such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference. He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Agathokleous

2021

J. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some caveats to Figures 3–8 should be mentioned. First, calculating JIF is frequently irreproducible because Clarivate does not provide the necessary raw data (Fernandez‐Llimos, 2016; Rossner et al, 2007). For this study, data were collected manually from the WOS database but it is unclear whether these data match the data that Clarivate uses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics

Manley

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

show abstract

“…These items, and particularly in the modern biomedicine, contain long lists of references, affecting the JIF calculations in many ways. It should be also stressed that the lack of transparency of the JIF calculations, which is partly due to the lack of open access to citations tracked by Thomson Reuters databases (64), damages reputation of the JIF as a reliable and reproducible scientometric tool.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the ‘obsession’ with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.

show abstract

Bradford’s law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About