Journal quality: The problem of size.

Asserts, based on the data of J. D. Hogan and R. Hedgepeth (see record 1984-06338-001), that the size of a journal can impact estimates of journal quality. It is argued that a high-quality journal that publishes a few articles each year will not be ranked high unless the number of citations is adjusted for journal size. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meacham contra Meacham.

Suggests that J. A. Meacham (see record 1985-27733-001) has succumbed to the need to evaluate the discipline of psychology and psychologists through the quantification of journal quality and journal citations. Such rankings may provide reassurance to psychologists but are merely narcissistic. Critical, self-reflective quantification may be useful when directed toward a stated goal, such as addressing gender inequities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Double, double, toil and trouble: Pitfalls of suppositional inquiries of journal ratings.

Three recent comments in the September 1976 issue (Buss & McDermott; Levin & Kratochwill; Porter (see record 1990-57250-001; see record 1990-57248-001; and see record 1990-57249-001), attempting to deal with the difficult area of assessing journal "reputations," raised some interesting questions concerning our study reporting journal rankings (Koulack & Keselman, November 1975; see record 1976-24649-001). We are in agreement with Buss and McDermott (1976) that citations and rankings might not be measuring the same things, but we are in disagreement with Porter, who suggests that "fine ordering among journals is whimsical" (p. 675). In fact, as we suggest in our introduction and have demonstrated in the body of our article (Koulack & Keselman, 1975), journal rankings change as a function of type of work and area of interest. Perhaps Porter's (1976) findings might be a bit whimsical because of the procedure he used to obtain his correlations. Moreover, it is impossible to probe further because Porter does not present the rankings of the two journals chosen from the APA members' top 50, which appeared in either of the citation measures' top 50. Such data might provide some insight into the low correlations obtained between journal citations and rankings. For example, extremely low citation rankings on either citation index for these two journals, given their relatively high position in the APA membership rankings, would diminish the size of the correlation coefficients. The Levin and Kratochwill (1976) comment is somewhat annoying because it distorts a line from Shakespeare as well as misrepresents our presentation. They imply that (a) we thought our rankings represented a definitive approach to the journal rating problem, (b) we neglected to place emphasis on a table presented in the paper, and (c) respondents chose to ignore our instructions and in fact, rated journals on the basis of familiarity. In conclusion, we appreciate the fact that there are numerous ways of examining journal reputations (e.g., rankings by departmental chairpersons, rankings by APA membership, citations obtained from 77 psychology journals published in 1969, citations obtained from 3 psychology journals published from July 1973 to June 1975) and that each of them has potential value. However, comments that are not based on empirical investigation, such as those of Levin and Kratochwill (1976), are mere suppositions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Publication patterns of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons. Is there support among members for peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals?

The American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN) has expressed a commitment to have all of its members' qualifying research efforts published in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals such as Pediatric Neurosurgery. To test this commitment, citations from January 1985 through December 1994 were analyzed for all 76 current members of the ASPN. The citations were divided into those of general or adult neurosurgical interest, and those of pediatric neurosurgical interest based upon title, key words, and/or abstract. Each pediatric neurosurgical citation was further classified by topic, and by the type of journal in which it appeared (pediatric neurosurgical, general or adult neurosurgical, and other pediatric or adult journal, subspecialty journal, or basic science journal). A total of 1,887 individual author citations were identified during the study period; of these, 1,586 citations (84%) were classified as pediatric neurosurgical citations. These included 1,391 citations from peer-reviewed publications and 195 citations from Concepts in Pediatric Neurosurgery. As a society, the ASPN published only one third of its citations in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgery journals; the remainder were cited in general neurosurgical or other journals. Even when only citations from neurosurgical journals (in which pediatric neurosurgeons were more likely to be primary authors and therefore to have more control over the journal of publication) were analyzed, less than 50% of citations appeared in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgery journals. Nearly three quarters of ASPN members failed to provide even a modest commitment--publishing 51% or more of their pediatric citations in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals. When the analysis was again limited to only those citations published in neurosurgery journals, over half of the members failed this '51% rule'. These results suggest the need for a firmer commitment from ASPN members to publish in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgery journals.     

Assessment of journals in social science psychology.

Examines journal orderings by citations for core journals in 8 areas using both the Social Science Citation Index ratios and the proportion of citations each journal received in its corresponding American Psychological Association journal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citation changes in the Journal of Counseling Psychology.

Recorded, counted, and tabulated by source and author citations in the Journal of Counseling Psychology from 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, and 1970. A study of the tables revealed that the dependence function of the journal (i.e., the citation of the journal itself) increased as the journal grew, sources of citations remained relatively stable over the years, and authors cited significantly changed during the same period. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Journal quality: The issue of diversity.

Reviewed the journal citations of 5 textbooks in developmental psychology to test whether a firm or final compendium of journal quality is possible or particularly desirable. The 5 tests provided 6,095 citations. Beyond 2 journals that the citations had strongly in common, each went in its own direction. It is concluded that any attempt to define these texts by some restrictive list of journals on which they agree fails quickly. The necessity of a listing of "quality" journals, across or within specialties, is questioned. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Scientific eminence versus scientific notoriety.

Comments that scientific eminence, as defined by frequency of journal citations (C. R. Myers; see record 1971-05206-001), manages to obviate none of the difficulties inherent in operational definitions. The implicit assumption underlying citation counting, that peer consensus and approval is necessarily related to scientific eminence, is erroneous. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

基于CNKI的X射线荧光光谱研究文献计量学分析

为客观掌握我国X射线荧光光谱(XRF)的研究进展,采用中国知网(CNKI)库内相关研究论文的年度分布、机构、基金、期刊来源等数据,结合Citespace的关键词分析方法,系统揭示了我国X射线荧光光谱的研究进展。结果表明:我国X射线荧光光谱研究处于快速发展阶段,每年论文发表数量呈指数增长;发表研究论文数量最多的是成都理工大学(69篇),总被引频次最高的机构是中国地质科学院国家地质实验测试中心(819次);目前X射线荧光光谱研究受到国家层面的基金支持力度不足;被引频次最高的论文第一作者是李国会(被引93次);发文量和论文被引率最高的期刊是《冶金分析》(300篇、占86.3%);总被引频次和篇均被引频次最高的期刊是《岩矿测试》(2541次、14.4次/篇);关键词分析结果表明,研究热点集中在样品制备、分析方法研究、检测应用;理论研究所占比例远远低于应用研究。所进行的研究对了解X射线荧光光谱的发展动态,推动相关研究工作的深化将产生重要的意义。     

Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology.

Investigated the validity and reliability of publication citations as a measure of scientific eminence in psychology. Citations from 14 representative English language journals, published from 1962-1967, were examined. Results were compared with other indices of eminence, i.e., being listed in American Men of Science, receiving scientific contribution awards, election to presidency of the American Psychological Association, etc. Results suggest that journal citation provides an index that is correlated with other measures of eminence. Difficulties from high journal citation and low eminence and the reverse of this are discussed. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citation analysis of psychology journals.

Conducted a citation analysis of 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-yr 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 2 previous studies by D. Koulak and H. J. Keselman (1975) and K. C. Mace and H. D. Warner (1973) were .39 and .56, respectively. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Linguistic Isolation of American Psychology.

Comments on the original article "Linguistic isolation of American social psychology: A comparative study of journal citations," by L. J. Finison and C. L. Whittemore (see record 1990-57169-001). In this comment, the author makes two remarks relevant to the linguistic isolation of American psychology in general. First, the low citation rate to foreign language publications in American psychology journals, such as that found by Finison and Whittemore for social psychology journals, does not necessarily mean that almost every piece of research published in psychology is contributed by an American psychologist, or that American psychologists ignore the work of foreign researchers. Second, another factor that may explain partially, and at least in some areas of psychology, the high English-language citation rate in psychology journals is the translation of the work by foreign psychologists into the English language. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citations to articles and commentaries: A reassessment.

In his reply to Christensen-Szalanski and Beach's (see record 1984-21471-001) note on scientific commentaries, Harnad (see record 1990-58862-001) erred in his calculation of the corrected impact factor for The Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), which he edits. There were 172 citations in 1982, producing an impact factor of 6.370. Although this is not as high as that claimed by Harnad, it places BBS in third place in the SSCI Journal Citation Reports. Even more germane to the question of the value of peer open commentary is the fact that this more careful counting of the citations allows the assignment of the remaining citations to the commentaries and to the responses. If citations are one measure of the use of scientific information by consumers, then the use of commentaries appears to be an effective marketing strategy. It may be that the readers are merely drawn to what promises to be a good controversy. A more charitable explanation is that good scientists recognize that science progresses most rapidly by building on the ideas and observations of others, by its self-correcting nature, and by the free interaction of competing ideas and evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An evaluation of 80 psychology journals based on the Science Citation Index..

Ranked 80 psychology journals and those from closely related fields in terms of their impact factors (average citations per article) where the numerator for the impact factor was based on the total number of citations accruing to 1972–1973 articles in that journal in the 1974 Science Citation Index. The top 3 journals were Psychological Review, Cognitive Psychology, and Psychological Bulletin. Comparisons are made with a ranking study conducted by M. J. White and K. G. White (1977). For related article, see PA, Vol 56:4649. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Research themes in counseling psychology: A cluster analysis of citations in the process and outcomes section of the Journal of Counseling Psychology..

27 studies were selected from 1982 issues of the present journal and were compared with one another with respect to their citations to examine the degree to which the studies researched the same domains. An index of similarity based on common citations was calculated for each pair of studies, and a single-link cluster analysis was performed. Results indicate that the social influence model was the primary representative model for 1982 research into process and outcome. Similar analyses for 1974, 1977, and 1980 confirmed that the social influence model is a recurrent research theme. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citing References Accurately.

The Council of Editors of the American Psychological Association (1, p. 43) states that "Accuracy in citations is of major importance." How accurately do psychologists cite references? This note deals with this question. Discrepancies in journal references to 15 psychologists are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Citation impact, rejection rates, and journal value": Correction.

Reports an error in the original article by J. Rotton et al (American Psychologist, 1993[Aug], Vol 48[8], 911–912). Table 1 listed the journal Psychological Research twice, and the journals Cognition and Child Study Journal were omitted. The mean SSCI for applied journals in Table 1 should have been 1.17. Multiple rather than squared multiple correlations were reported for rejection rates. Area and type of journal explained 48% of variance in rejection rates, and the F ratio for predicting citations should have been F(9,28)?=?14.82. On page 912, the mean SSCI for experimental journals should have been 1.51. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1994-03368-001.) Comments on L. C. Buffardi and J. A. Nichols's (1981) list of rejection rates for psychological journals and further examines the relation between rejection rates, citation impact, and journal value. It was found that 69% of the variance in rejection rates was explained by area and type of journal. As Buffardi and Nichols reported, rejection rates were higher for APA than for non-APA journals (80.27% vs 65.37%), and citation indices were higher for APA than for non-APA journals (2.63 vs 0.91)… (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Two solitudes" in psychology.

Used frequency of citation in a 6-yr sample of the journal literature (143,260 citations referring to the work of 48,903 authors) to identify a group of "visible" psychologists. A sample of 300 authors, out of 3,056 with 6 or more citations was used. A principal component factor analysis of the correlation matrix across journals showed a bipolar factor suggesting that there were 2 groups of journals in the sample: a general-experimental group and a personality-social group. It was found that most "visible" psychologists are cited frequently in only 1 of these groups of journals, and that very few are cited frequently in both groups. (french summary) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perfectionism dimensions and research productivity in psychology professors: Implications for understanding the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionism.

The consequences of demanding perfection of oneself are hotly debated, with researchers typically arguing for either the adaptiveness or the maladaptiveness of this trait. Research informing this debate involves mainly psychiatric patients, undergraduates, and self-report data, suggesting a need to broaden this relatively narrow evidence base. The present study examines self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., demanding perfection of oneself), conscientiousness, socially prescribed perfectionism, neuroticism, and research productivity in psychology professors. Self-oriented perfectionism was negatively related to total number of publications, number of first-authored publications, number of citations, and journal impact rating, even after controlling for competing predictors (e.g., conscientiousness). Self-oriented perfectionism may represent a form of counterproductive overstriving that limits research productivity amongst psychology professors. Although self-oriented perfectionism is often labeled as adaptive, such statements may be overly general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)