Calculating impact factor: How bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (1) (2008)
As bibliographical classification of published journal items affects the denominator in this equation, we investigated how the numerator and denominator of the impact factor equation were generated for representative journals in two categories of the Journal Citation Reports. We performed a full text search of the 1st-ranked journal in 2004 JCR category “Medicine, General and Internal” and 61st-ranked journal, 1st-ranked journal in category “Multidisciplinary Sciences” and journal with a relative rank of CMJ. Large journals published more items categorized by Web of Science as non-research items : 63% out of total 5,193 items in Nature and 81% out of 3,540 items in NEJM, compared with 31% out of 283 items in CMJ and only 2 out of 126 items in AABC. Some items classified by WoS as non-original contained original research data. These items received a significant number of citations: 6.9% of total citations in Nature, 14.7% in NEJM and 18.5% in CMJ. IF decreased for all journals when only items presenting original research and citations to them were used for IF calculation. Regardless of the journal’s size or discipline, publication of non-original research and its classification by the bibliographical database have an effect on both numerator and denominator of the IF equation
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ricardo Lopes Cardoso & Andre C. B. Aquino, Vagueness on the Left Side of Balance Sheet Classification.
James P. Blevins (1999). Productivity and Exponence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1015-1016.
Jessica S. Ancker & Annette Flanagin (2007). A Comparison of Conflict of Interest Policies at Peer-Reviewed Journals in Different Scientific Disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2):147-157.
Zenon Pylyshyn (1994). Some Primitive Mechanisms of Spatial Attention. Cognition 50 (1-3):363-384.
Matko Marušić, Jadranka Božikov, Vedran Katavić, Darko Hren, Marko Kljaković-Gašpić & Ana Marušić (2004). Authorship in a Small Medical Journal: A Study of Contributorship Statements by Corresponding Authors. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):493-502.
Ronald A. Rensink (2002). Visual Attention. In L. Nagel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Macmillan
Joan Marie McMahon & Robert J. Harvey (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Reidenbach–Robin Multidimensional Ethics Scale. Journal of Business Ethics 72 (1):27 - 39.
Joan M. McMahon & Robert J. Harvey (2006). An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones' Moral Intensity Construct. Journal of Business Ethics 64 (4):381-404.
Jong Yong Abdiel Foo (2009). A Study on Journal Self-Citations and Intra-Citing Within the Subject Category of Multidisciplinary Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):491-501.
Added to index2009-05-04
Total downloads9 ( #378,786 of 1,934,372 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,207 of 1,934,372 )
How can I increase my downloads?