A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST,IPM, JOD, 1998–2008

Employing a citation analysis, this study explored and compared the bibliometric characteristics and the subject relationship with other disciplines of and among the three leading information science journals, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), Information Processing and Management and Journal of Documentation. The citation data were drawn from references of each article of the three journals during 1998 and 2008. The Ulrich’s Periodical Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat, and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Quantitative results on the number of JASIST, IPM and JOD literature references, average number of references cited per paper, document type of cited literature and the journal self-citation rate are reported. Moreover, the highly cited journals and books, the main classes and subclasses of cited journals and books in papers of the three journals, the highly cited subjects in journals and books of library and information science were identified and analyzed. Comparison on the characteristics of cited journals and books confirmed that all the three journals under study are information science oriented, except JOD which is library science orientation. JASIST and IPM are very much in common and diffuse to other disciplines more deeply than JOD.     

References,authors, journals and scientific disciplines underlying the sustainable development literature: a citation analysis

This paper identifies the main references, authors and journals influencing the sustainable development literature. The task is accomplished by means of a citation analysis based on the records of ISI Web of Science. We found that the core of sustainability thinking is framed by a pattern of landmark studies published around every 5 years. Only 380 publications have been cited at least ten times. References with the highest influence are those with a global dimension and large diffusion, such as Brundtland Commission’s “Our common future” (1987) and classics such as Meadows’ et al. “Limits to growth” (1972). The list of the most influential references over the period 1960–2005 is dominated by contributions from economics (particularly ecological economics) and environmental science, but includes many other disciplines such as urban planning, political sciences and sociology. References are also made to policy documents such as “Agenda 21”, one of the main outcomes of the Rio Summit in 1992. In analyzing citation trends, we found that classics, because of their high rates of citations per year, seem to have a more enduring and stable influence.     

A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof and Leydesdorff, J Informetr 4(3):423–430, 2010), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old “crown” indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman (Scientometrics 87:467–481, 2011a) argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism. Therefore, we comment by using previously published data of Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491–502, 2006) to address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past citations per paper/mean journal citation score (CPP/JCSm) or CPP/FCSm (citations per paper/mean field citation score) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572, 2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new “crown” indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones.     

Galton 2011 revisited: a bibliometric journey in the footprints of a universal genius

Commemorating the 100th death anniversary of Francis Galton, this paper is a bibliometric impact analysis of the works of this outstanding scientist and predecessor of scientometrics. Citation analysis was done in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (Publish or Perish) in order to retrieve the most cited books and journal articles. Additionally references were identified where Galton was rather mentioned than cited in order to analyze the phenomenon of obliteration by incorporation. Finally occurrence counts of Galton’s works in obituaries, Festschrift, the website Galton.org, major encyclopaedias and biographical indexes were compared to citation counts. As an outcome Galton’s works are increasingly cited or mentioned. Obliteration (use of eponyms) applies to one-third of Galton’s works and seems to be typical for fields like mathematics or statistics, whereas citations are more common in psychology. The most cited books and journal articles are also the most mentioned with remarkable correlation. Overall citation analysis and occurrence counting are complementary useful methods for the impact analysis of the works of “giants”.     

Korean journals in the Science Citation Index: What do they reveal about the intellectual structure of S&T in Korea?

During the last decade, we have witnessed a sustained growth of South Korea’s research output in terms of the world share of publications in the Science Citation Index database. However, Korea’s citation performance is not yet as competitive as publication performance. In this study, the authors examine the intellectual structure of Korean S&T field based on social network analysis of journal-journal citation data using the ten Korean SCI journals as seed journals. The results reveal that Korean SCI journals function more like publication places, neither research channels nor information sources among national scientists. Thus, these journals may provide Korean scholars with access to international scientific communities by facilitating the respective entry barriers. However, there are no citation relations based on their Korean background. Furthermore, we intend to draw some policy implications which may be helpful to increase Korea’s research potential.     

Analysis of the ch-index: an indicator to evaluate the diffusion of scientific research output by citers

This paper focuses the attention on the ch-index, a recent bibliometric indicator similar to the Hirsch (h) index, to evaluate the published research output of a scientist (Ajiferuke and Wolfram, Proceedings of the 12th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 798–808, 2009). Ch-index is defined as the number such that, for a general group of scientific publications, ch publications are cited by at least ch different citers while the other publications are cited by no more than ch different citers. The basic difference from the classical h is that, according to ch, the diffusion of one author’s publication is evaluated on the basis of the number of different citing authors (or citers), rather than the number of received citations. The goal of this work is to discuss the pros and cons of ch and identify its connection with h. A large sample of scientists in the Quality Engineering/Management field are analyzed so as to investigate the novel indicator’s characteristics. Then, the analysis is preliminarily extended to other scientific disciplines. The most important result is that ch is almost insensitive to self-citations and/or citations made by recurrent citers, and it can be profitably used for complementing h.     

Citation bias in medical journals

Multivariate statistical analysis of the citation profiles of urology and related journals (i.e. the relative extent to which each journal cites itself and other journals within a set) has highlighted hidden correlations. We reveal the existence of a ‘transatlantic’ rift in citation practice and of a confined discipline-oriented world which interfaces weakly with many other disciplines. We also interpret the results of our analyses in terms of basic and clinical research and examine whether there is a time-related selectivity in citation. Taken together, our results call for a serious appraisal of present-day research trends and of their evaluation. The open question is how to create a terrain that will foster original, possibly interdisciplinary, research in developed nations whilst maintaining cultural individuality.     

Article-count impact factor of materials science journals in SCI database

This article proposed a new index, so-called “Article-Count Impact Factor” (ACIF) for evaluating journal quality in light of citation behaviour in comparison with the ISI journal impact factors. The ACIF index was the ratio of the number of articles that were cited in the current year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. In this work, we used 171 journal titles in materials categories published in the years of 2001–2004 in international journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI) database as data source. It was found that ACIF index could be used as an alternative tool in assessing the journal quality, particularly in the case where the assessed journals had the same (equal or similar) JIF values. The experimental results suggested that the higher the ACIF value, the more the number of articles being cited. The changes in ACIF values were more dependent on the JIF values rather than the total number of articles. Polymer Science had the greatest ACIF values, suggesting that the articles in Polymer Science had greater “citation per article” than those in Metallurgical Engineering and Ceramics. It was also suggested that in order to increase a JIF value of 1.000, Ceramics category required more articles to be cited as compared to Metallurgical Engineering and Polymer Science categories.     

Citation expectations: are they realized? Study of the Matthew index for Russian papers published abroad

We consider the “Matthew effect” in the citation process which leads to reallocation (or misallocation) of the citations received by scientific papers within the same journals. The case when such reallocation correlates with a country where an author works is investigated. Russian papers in chemistry and physics published abroad were examined. We found that in both disciplines in about 60% of journals Russian papers are cited less than average ones. However, if we consider each discipline as a whole, citedness of a Russian paper in physics will be on the average level, while chemistry publications receive about 16% citations less than one may expect from the citedness of the journals where they appear. Moreover, Russian chemistry papers mostly become undercited in the leading journals of the field. Characteristics of a “Matthew index” indicator and its significance for scientometric studies are also discussed.     

Countries positioning in open access journals system: An investigation of citation distribution patterns

By their widespread availability and dissemination through open access media, scholarly outputs witness an improved visibility supposed to cause a better citation performance. However, due to the existence of the Matthew effect in science system, which affects users’ perceptions of quality, ultimate effects of the enhanced visibility on different entities are obscure. Moreover, different attitudes towards open access give rise to a more strong quality dynamics in the open access world. Aiming to explore the consequence of the interaction between visibility and quality dynamics, this study investigates countries positioning in open access journals. The results show that the world’s countries welcome open access pattern whether by submitting to or publishing open access journals. A large proportion of the enduring, prestigious open access journals are published by scientifically proficient and developing nations, emphasizing their successful commitment to maintain the undertaken role. The results of the citation analysis highlight national inequalities regarding citation distributions among countries contributing to the journals within the system and within individual disciplines in the system. Well-performing countries mainly consist of advanced ones; however, some lessdeveloped nations are found to perform well in the journal system.     

Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield

Journals were central to Eugene Garfield’s research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary—that is, non-disciplined—variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion  or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.     

Chinese communication studies: A citation analysis of Chinese communication research in English-language journals

The study employs citation analysis method to identify the disciplines and active research areas in communication studies on communication systems in China. Moreover, the study seeks to contribute to the methodological issues of citation analysis by including new variables in the analysis. Using Chinese communication research in 11 Chinese/Asian studies journals and 13 journalism/communication journals published in English since 1931, the study found that there were little exchanges between Chinese studies and communication scholars. Howerver, the study showed that by including two variables—theme of articles and academic affiliation of authors, the findings can more accurate demonstrate the relationship between the research activities and disciplines cited.     

Predicting faculty job centrality in communication

Data from 1,581 faculty members affiliated with 98 doctoral-granting Communication programs in the United States were analyzed to determine normative publication rates and predictors of position centrality in the faculty hiring network. The Communication Institute for Online Scholarship (CIOS) database was used to measure publication frequency in refereed journals. Position centrality was measured using a Communication program’s relative position in the hiring network as established by Barnett, Danowski, Feeley, and Stalker (2010). The average publication frequencies by academic rank were as follows: assistant professors averaged 2.29 articles (N = 441, SD = 3.29); associate professors averaged 6.69 articles (N = 497, SD = 5.77); professors averaged 10.92 articles (N = 542, SD = 12.09). Results from multiple regression analyses indicate the number of publications for faculty members and position centrality of where one earned his or her doctoral degree significantly predicted current position centrality. Publication numbers for one’s advisor and year of earned doctorate did not emerge as significant predictors of position centrality.     

The citation impacts and citation environments of Chinese journals in mathematics

Based on the citation data of journals covered by the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD), we obtained aggregated journal-journal citation environments by applying routines developed specifically for this purpose. Local citation impact of journals is defined as the share of the total citations in a local citation environment, which is expressed as a ratio and can be visualized by the size of the nodes. The vertical size of the nodes varies proportionally to a journal’s total citation share, while the horizontal size of the nodes is used to provide citation information after correction for the within-journal (self-) citations. In the “citing” environment, the equivalent of the local citation performance can also be considered as a citation activity index. Using the “citing” patterns as variables one is able to map how the relevant journal environments are perceived by the collective of authors of a journal, while the “cited” environment reflects the impact of journals in a local environment. In this study, we analyze citation impacts of three Chinese journals in mathematics and compare local citation impacts with impact factors. Local citation impacts reflect a journal’s status and function better than (global) impact factors. We also found that authors in Chinese journals prefer international instead of domestic ones as sources for their citations.     

Publication outlets and their effect on academic writers’ citations

This article focuses on how and why the publication outlets in which academic writers’ work appears can impact on their citations, as part of a qualitative interview-based study of computer scientists’ and sociologists’ citing behaviour. Informants spoke of how they cited differently when writing in outlets aimed at a less knowledgeable audience, and for audiences from different disciplines and in different parts of the world. Citation behaviour can also be affected when writing for journals which favour different research paradigms, and the word limits journals impose led some informants to cite more selectively than they would have wished. The implications of the findings and the strengths and weaknesses of the interview-based method of investigation are also discussed.     

Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature

This article presents an exploratory analysis of publication delays in the science field. Publication delay is defined as the time period between submission and publication of an article for a scientific journal. We obtained a first indication that these delays are longer with regard to journals in the fields of mathematics and technical sciences than they are in other fields of science. We suggest the use of data on publication delays in the analysis of the effects of electronic publishing on reference/citation patterns. A preliminary analysis on a small sample suggests that—under rather strict assumptions—the cited half-life of references may be reduced with a factor of about 2 if publication delays decrease radically.     

A reference-based Hirschian similarity measure for journals

Hirsch’s concept of h-index was used to define a similarity measure for journals. The h-similarity is easy to calculate from the publicly available data of the Journal Citation Reports, and allows for plausible interpretation. On the basis of h-similarity, a relative eminence indicator of journals was determined: the ratio of the JCR impact factor to the weighted average of that of similar journals. This standardization allows journals from disciplines with lower average citation level (mathematics, engineering, etc.) to get into the top lists.     

An impact of Croatian journals measured by citation analysis from SCI-expanded database in time span 1975–2001

The aim of this research is to gain an insight into international recognition of the STM (Science, Technology, and Medicine) Croatian journals measured by citations in SCI-expanded database. The sample for the research was a citation analysis of 142 journals in time span 1975–2001 for papers published in 1975–1998. More than 90% of those journals are not indexed by SCI-expanded. For the purpose of this research we introduced a new scientometric indicator Normalized number of Citations per 100 Papers (NCP) that allows us direct comparison of the journals from various categories (NCP = 100C/P / IF₁₉₈₉). We chose the year 1989 as a mean value for time span 1975–2001. By citation analysis we established the influence of errors on recognition of Croatian journals and their articles. Obtained results show that an article-to-article link is not found for 32% of cited items. The most frequent type of error is journal title, 37%, which indicates that approximately one third of Croatian journals can not be found when searching by journal title only. Some Croatian journals, even not indexed by SCI-expanded, showed relatively high rank in an impact, i.e. their NCP is higher than 100, and number of citations per paper is higher than 1.     

Indices of journal citation relatedness and citation relationships among aquatic biology journals

Simple quantitative indices of pair-wise journal citation relatedness (based on the numbers of references given to and received from a journal title, which are provided by Science Citation Index database) are translated by an automatic clustering procedure into a meaningful map diagram reflecting topical relatedness of journals within a field of science. Such a map for 60 journals in marine and freshwater biology and related sciences published in 1987 reveals a tight cluster of marine biology journals quite distinct from the freshwater biology journal cluster and from the fisheries cluster. The journals within the marine biology cluster and those with strongest pair-wise links with them can be regarded as the core journals in marine biology. Indices of unilateral citation relatedness are used to obtain diagrams, which we term citograms. The citograms visualize patterns of citation relatedness of a journal (its citing and being cited). Journal self-citation can be meaningfully estimated using the bilateral index of relatedness. Self-citation is high in specialized or regional journal titles. It also appears to be quite substantial in journals of broader scope, which possibly reflect authors' subjective preferences.