Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor

Dorta-González, Pablo; Dorta-González, María Isabel; Peñate, Dolores Rosa Santos; Suárez-Vega, Rafael

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.013

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The idea of comparing publications with other similar publications selected based on shared references (i.e., bibliographic coupling) is also discussed by Braun (1993, 1996). A somewhat similar idea at the level of journals instead of individual publications is proposed by Dorta-González et al (2014).…”

Section: Normalized Indicators Based On Highly Cited Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 87%

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Waltman

2016

Journal of Informetrics

897

573

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research. Given an initial set of relevant publications on a certain topic, I used CitNetExplorer to identify additional publications that could potentially be of relevance. This was done based on citation relations between publications. For instance, all publications cited by or citing to publications already classified as relevant were identified. Or alternatively, publications with at least a certain minimum number of citation relations (e.g., three or four citation relations) with publications already classified as relevant were identified. For each publication identified by CitNetExplorer, I then manually determined (e.g., based on the title and abstract of the publication) whether the publication is indeed of relevance to the topic of interest 5 or not. In this way, the set of relevant publications was extended. The above steps could then be repeated in order to identify additional relevant publications. A number of iterations were usually performed until all relevant publications on a certain topic seemed to have been found. Two further comments should be made on the way in which the publications included in this review were selected. First, it should be emphasized that the primary aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in the literature on citation impact indicators. The focus of the review therefore is mainly on the more recent literature on citation impact indicators. No special attention is paid to the historical development of the literature. Second, it should be mentioned that this review does not provide an exhaustive overview of the literature on citation impact indicators. Given the size of the literature, providing an exhaustive overview in which all relevant publications are included is hardly possible. As already pointed out inSection 1, this review focuses on selected topics studied in the literature on citation impact indicators. However, even the literature on these selected topics cannot be covered in a fully comprehensive way. This review therefore includes ...

show abstract

Section: Normalized Indicators Based On Highly Cited Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 87%

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Waltman

2016

Journal of Informetrics

897

573

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further longitudinal study needs to be conducted to verify the direct impact of database enlistment. Second, this study targeted the biomedical and health science journals published in Korea as a whole, but the distribution of journal characteristics and citation behaviors might be different in sub-areas of biomedical sciences [ 23 ]. Therefore, research in this area may be expanded by considering the specialty categories of biomedical and health sciences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citation Analysis for Biomedical and Health Sciences Journals Published in Korea

Chang

Kim

et al. 2017

Healthc Inform Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesA citation analysis of biomedical and health sciences journals was conducted based on their enlistment in journal databases to identify the factors contributing to the citation metrics.MethodsAmong the 1,219 academic journals managed by the National Center for Medical Information and Knowledge at the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 556 journals were included for analysis as of July 2016. The characteristics of the journals include history years, publication media, language, open-access policy as well as the status enlisted in international and domestic databases, such as Science Citation Index (SCI), Scopus, Medline, PubMed Central, Embase, and Korea Citation Index (KCI). Six bibliometric measures were collected from SCI, Scopus, and KCI as of 2015, the most recent disclosure year. Analyses of group differences and influential factors were conducted using t-tests, Mann-Whitney tests, and multiple regression.ResultsJournal characteristics, such as history years, publication media, and open-access policy, were not significant factors influencing global or domestical citation of the journals. However, global citations were higher for SCI and Medline enlisted journals than for their counterparts. Among KCI journals, the KCI impact factors of journals published in English only were lower.ConclusionsEfforts by journals to be enlisted in international databases, especially in SCI and Medline, are critical to enhance their global circulation. However, articles published in English only hinder the use of domestic researchers. Different strategies are required for enhancing international and domestic readerships.

show abstract

“…However, in bibliometric studies, there is no uniform recommendation regarding study design of these types of bibliometric studies. For example, it has been reported that in the biomedical field, list of fifty or more citations is common, while in mathematics less than twenty citations are most common [76].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research methodology used in the 50 most cited articles in the field of pediatrics: types of studies that become citation classics

Kadić

Kovačević

Runjić

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One of the frequently used methods for assessing research trends and the impact of published scientific literature in a particular discipline is citation analysis. Journals may strive to improve their metrics by choosing manuscripts and study designs that are more likely to be cited. The aim of this study was to identify the 50 most-cited articles in the field of pediatrics, analyze their study design and other characteristics of those articles, and assess the prevalence of systematic reviews among them. Methods: In December 2017, we searched Web of Science (WoS) for all articles published in the field of pediatrics. Two authors screened articles independently and in the further analysis included 50 articles with the highest number of citations. To avoid bias for scientific papers published earlier, the citation density was calculated. We also analyzed Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of journals where citation classics were published. Results: The citation density in top 50 cited articles in the field of pediatrics ranged from 33.16 to 432.8, with the average of 119.95. Most of the articles reported clinical science. Median 2016 JIF for journals that published them was 6.226 (range: 2.778 to 72.406). Half of the top 10 highly cited articles in pediatrics were published in a journal with JIF below 5. Most of the studies among the citation classics in pediatrics were cross-sectional studies (N = 22), followed by non-systematic narrative reviews (N = 10), randomized controlled trials (N = 5), cohort studies (N = 5), systematic reviews (N = 2), case-control studies (N = 2), case reports (N = 2), and there was one study protocol and one expert opinion. Conclusion: Few randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were among citation classics in the field of pediatrics. Articles that use observational research methodology, and are published in journals with lower impact factors, can become citation classics.

show abstract

Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor

Cited by 27 publications

References 28 publications

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation Analysis for Biomedical and Health Sciences Journals Published in Korea

Research methodology used in the 50 most cited articles in the field of pediatrics: types of studies that become citation classics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About