Citation analysis of psychology journals.

Abstract

A citation analysis was conducted for 57 psychology journals. Total citations to articles published in each journal in 1972 and 1973 were counted from a sample of pages (10%) in the Social Science Citation Index. Journals were rank ordered according to citation frequency per articles published in each journal during the 2-year period. Mean citation rate per published article was .9. Spearman rank correlations between the rank order based on citations per article and the rank orders of the same journals determined by subjective evaluation in two previous studies by Koulack and Keselman and Mace and Warner were .39 and .56, respectively.

A 30-Year Citation Analysis of Bibliometric Trends at theArchives of Environmental Health, 1975–2004

“…23 In 1972, the ISI introduced the Social Sciences Citation Index R (SSCI R ), 24 from which some of the earliest social science citation analyses were conducted during the 1970s and 1980s. [25][26][27][28] Psychology journals appear to have been first ranked in 1973, 26 with citation analysis first being conducted in this field during 1977. 28 Citation analysis was also being undertaken in the field of tropical medicine during the 1970s, 29 a trend that would continue in later years.…”

“…[25][26][27][28] Psychology journals appear to have been first ranked in 1973, 26 with citation analysis first being conducted in this field during 1977. 28 Citation analysis was also being undertaken in the field of tropical medicine during the 1970s, 29 a trend that would continue in later years. [30][31][32][33] In 1981, Pearson 34 published his citation analysis of drug information services activity between 1961 and 1979.…”

Factors affecting research productivity of production and operations management groups: An empirical study

“…Such journal evaluation studies have been conducted in economics (Moore [24]; Skeels and Taylor [30]; Billings and Viksnins [6]; Hawkins et al [16]; Liebowitz and Palmer [21]), accounting (Benjamin and Brenner [5]; Weber and Stevenson [35], finance (Coe and Weinstock [9,10]), management (Sharplin and Marby [29]), and psychology (White and White [36]). …”

Qualitative Ratings of Human Development Journals

“…Evaluating professional journals in terms of perceived eminence and/or sci entific impact has been a growing activity in recent years, especially among psy chologists (e.g., Mace and Warner, 1973;Koulack and Keselman, 1975;White and White, 1977). Motivation for these endeavors has been (a) to advance our understanding of the historical development of science, in what has been called the 'sociology of psychology ' {Buss, 1975); (b) to guide potential contributors to journals {Mace and Warner, 1973), and (c) to assist in making decisions about an individual faculty member's promotion or tenure {Buss arid McDermott, 1976).…”

“…Journal rating has been accomplished (a) by asking for subjective evalua tions from individuals who are thought to be experts (department heads, Mace and Warner, 1973) or from members of a particular professional organization (Koulack and Keselman, 1975), or (b) through objective measurements of the frequency of citation in various indexes {White and White, 1977;Rushton and Roediger, 1978) or by prestigous reviewers {Porter, 1978). Certain methodologi cal flaws have been reported with both approaches, including the confounding effects of familiarity on judgments of quality {Levin and Kratochwill, 1976), nonrepresentative subject samples {Boor, 1973), unreliable sampling of citation indexes {Rushton and Roediger, 1978), tendencies to underrate speciality jour nals {Porter, 1978), and a willingness of subjects to rank extinct and/or non existing journals {Adams and Peery, 1979).…”