History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences

Archambault, Éric; Larivière, Vincent

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x

Cited by 235 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our stratified analysis according to institution shows discrepancy between the highest publication rate and the lowest mean IF, which highlights the important point that quantity and quality of publications are not necessarily related. The IF, devised originally in the 1960s, is the most widely used method of rating quality of published evidence, 4 and is defined as the mean citation rate, during that given year, of the papers published in that journal during the previous 2 years. The IF can be perceived as a fortifying measure of journal quality, its papers and corresponding authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Podium to Press: The 10-Year Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (Qua)

Al‐Qaoud¹,

Yafi²,

Aprikian³

2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Our objective was to determine the proportion of publications arising from abstracts presented at the Quebec Urological Association (QUA). We wanted to analyze differences in publication rates according to certain parameters, and to examine the quality of publications using journal impact factors. Methods: All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the QUA between 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the QUA archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables included: institute, number of abstracts presented, year of presentation and publication, impact factor of publishing journal (according to 2010 Thomson Reuters report), time to publication (months), research type, presenter and location of research. Kaplan Meier methods were used for analysis. Results: By May 2012, 248 out of 439 abstracts (QUA 2000 to 2010) were published in peer-reviewed journals, resulting in a publication rate of 56%. There were significant differences in publication rates according to institution, research type and location of research. Researchers from non-Quebec institutions were twice as likely to publish compared to those from Quebec institutions (Cox HR 2.13, CI 1.20-3.76, p < 0.01). Discussion: The QUA publication rate was considerably higher than previously studied by the American Urological Association (37.8%) and British Association of Urological Surgeons (≈42%); however length of follow-up and presentation types differed. Research conducted outside Quebec was more likely to be published, reflecting the multi-institution robust study designs and higher level of evidence. Factors influencing publication deserve further attention, and clinicians are encouraged to conduct research with intent to publish.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Podium to Press: The 10-Year Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (Qua)

Al‐Qaoud¹,

Yafi²,

Aprikian³

2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a vast body of literature on the JIF (see for example [23][24][25][26][27]). Yang and Zhang proposed a new JIF, calculated with the h-index as one of the variables, as an alternative to the traditional JIF published by ISI-Thomson Reuters [28].…”

Section: Introduction and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors

Cabos

Campanario

2018

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We used the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) to develop the hjif-index, calculated in a similar way to h-like indices. To this end, we mapped the JIFs of one JCR group to natural numbers, and evaluated the degree of correspondence between the interval from zero to the highest JIF in the group and a set of natural numbers. Next, we plotted the straight line y = x to obtain the group's hjif-index as the JIF corresponding to the journal immediately above the straight line. We call the set of journals above the straight line the hjif-core. We calculated hjif-indices corresponding to the 2-year JIF (hjif2-index) and 5-year JIF (hjif5-index) windows for all 176 JCR groups listed in the 2014 Science edition. We also studied derived indicators such as the distribution of journals in JCR groups according to their hjif-indices, the distribution of journals and JIFs in the hjif-core, and other variables and indicators. We found that the hjif2-and hjif5-index behaved in a similar way, and that in general their distribution showed a peak followed by a relatively long tail. The hjif-index can be used as a tool to rank journals in a manner that better reflects the variable number of journals within a given JCR group and in each group's hjif-core as an alternative to the more arbitrary JCR-based percentile ranking.

show abstract

“…RePEc currently adjusts by weighing an authors publication by 1 For a survey on the role of impact factors see Archambault and Larivière (2009). the publishing journal's current impact factor. Impact factors, however, change over time as documented by Althouse et al (2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standing on the shoulder of giants: the aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings

Meyer¹,

Wohlrabe

2017

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RePEc rankings have become a well-established source of information about actual and perceived academic performance of institutions, academic fields and their authors. One essential ingriedient are the impact factors calculated in RePEc which differ from the standard ones. RePEc reports the ratio of the cumulative citations of all articles of a journal and the number of listed items. The continuously updated RePEc impact factors account for the whole journal and citation history. This approach give rise to a potential free-riding of authors who profit from journal ranking established in the past.In this paper we demonstrate how the rankings of economists change if one calculates yearly impact factors. The distribution of gains and losses is most pronounced among middle-field ranked authors while the top group shows relative persistence.

show abstract

History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences

Cited by 235 publications

References 27 publications

From Podium to Press: The 10-Year Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (Qua)

From Podium to Press: The 10-Year Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (Qua)

Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors

Standing on the shoulder of giants: the aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About