Citation-Based Impact Measures and the Bradfordian Selection Criteria

Boyce, Bert R.; Pollens, Janet Sue

doi:10.1300/j105v04n03_03

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These authors conclude that the exclusive selection of core journals exposes the decisiontaker to the risk of uncertain quality. Boyce and Pollens (1982) suggest that Bradford ranking itself has no correlation with the quality of papers that journals contribute, neither does citation 'weighting' (the numbers of citations earned per paper), nor any of the other citation techniques considered by many observers to be useful measures of quality. Pontigo and Lancaster (1986) support this thesis.…”

Section: Productivity At a Pricementioning

confidence: 90%

A decision model for technical journal deselection with an experiment in biomedical communications

Triolo

Bao²

1993

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Productivity At a Pricementioning

confidence: 90%

A decision model for technical journal deselection with an experiment in biomedical communications

Triolo

Bao²

1993

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, using the literature of dye laser, MAGYAR [1974], found that 60% of the articles most cited appear in the most productive journals of the top Bradford distribution nucleus zone. BOYCE & POLLENS [1982], using citation as a measure of quality, they found a strong correlation between productivity and total number of citations. Nevertheless, no significant correlation exists between productivity and either "impact factor" (number of citations earned per paper published) or "quality weight".…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis and comparison of scientometric data between journals of physics, chemistry and engineering

Tsay

2008

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By employing the Pearson correlation, Fisher-and t-tests, the present study analyzes and compares scientometric data including number of source items, number of citations, impact factor, immediacy index, citing half-life and cited half-life, for essential journals in physics, chemistry and engineering, from SCI JCR on the Web 2002. The results of the study reveal that for all the scientometric indicators, except the cited half-life, there is no significant mean difference between physics and chemistry subjects indicating similar citation behavior among the scientists. There is no significant mean difference in the citing half-life among the three subjects. Significant mean difference is generally observed for most of the scientometric indicators between engineering and physics (or chemistry) demonstrating the difference in citation behavior among engineering researchers and scientists in physics or chemistry.Significant correlations among number of source items, number of citations, impact factor, and immediacy index and between cited half-life and citing half-life generally prevail for each of the three subjects. On the contrary, in general, there is no significant correlation between the cited half-life and other scientometric indicators. The three subjects present the same strength of the correlations between number of source items and number of citations, between number of citations and impact factor, and between cited half-life and citing half-life.

show abstract

“…Third, research has found that numbers of citations in core journals do not always correlate with quality papers [3,4,14,28,36]. Fourth, the development of an automated quality filtering device involves the use of so many variables that application in an information retrieval situation is essentially impractical.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The information analyst as a quality filter in the scientific communication process

Neill

1989

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two major problems in the field of information use today—the quantity of material produced and its quality. Quality is of two kinds—innovation or newness of the results, and the validity of the results. This paper is concerned with the problem of validity and how to screen the literature using this criterion as a filter. Various quality filtering systems are discussed, including peer review and expert panels, and the problems associated with them delineated. It is proposed that the information analyst (defined anew herein) be used as a filter to identify quality research papers, especially using the validity criterion. A discussion of the pros and cons of the recommendation is initiated. The paper has two objectives: (1) to establish a definition of one of the jobs in the information field, and (2) to present an idea that will increase our ability to identify and control the quality scientific literature. The growth of literature and the question of qualityGoffman and Warren's [13] Scientific Injormation Systems and the Principle of Selectivity addresses two issues in the study of the nature of knowledge that are rarely if ever touched on by historians and philosophers of science. These two issues are peculiarly in the field of study of librarianship and information science; of librarianship because of the implications for practice, and of information science because it is information scientists who are responsible for discovering, testing, and describing solutions to problematic phenomena in the use of information and knowledge. The issues are: (1) the growth patterns of the knowledge record, that is, of the literature, and (2) the quality of the collection, or the library, gathered from that record for use.To study the growth of the record, information scientists have developed the apparatus of biblio-metrics. To ensure the quality of collections, librarians have identified general criteria such as those delineated in Sheehy [31] and Higgins [16].Our concerns about the record have two bases.One is the responsibility that librarianship has always felt, as an ideal, to collect and store the complete output of recorded thought regardless of quality (because future usefulness and values are unknown), in order to preserve the cultural heritage. Of course, that ideal is impossible to reach. The problem is twofold: (1) storage space, and (2) the discovery and control of all publications. The second concern is to select from the known record, on some criteria of quality, for current use. The problem here is not only deciding on the criteria, but also applying them.The information we need regarding the growth of the literature is the number of items that presently exist and that we will be facing in the future, and what patterns, if any, growth follows. The information we need regarding quality is how to make judgments about quality that will enhance the success of a user's personal programme. This

show abstract

Citation-Based Impact Measures and the Bradfordian Selection Criteria

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

A decision model for technical journal deselection with an experiment in biomedical communications

A decision model for technical journal deselection with an experiment in biomedical communications

An analysis and comparison of scientometric data between journals of physics, chemistry and engineering

The information analyst as a quality filter in the scientific communication process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About