Tag Archives: impact factor

The “impact” of the Journal Impact Factor in the review, tenure, and promotion process

(26 Apr 2019) The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) – a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in a journal – has been widely critiqued as a measure of individual academic performance. However, it is unclear whether these criticisms and high profile declarations, such as DORA, have led to significant cultural […]


Read More...


Impact factors continue to influence academic evaluation, reveals a recent survey

(19 Apr 2019)  About half of the research focused institutions in the US and Canada still rely on journal impact factors to make promotion and tenure related decisions, revealed a recent survey based study published on PeerJ Preprints. The report provides insights into the usage of the impact factor, a metric whose suitability to judge the quality of research […]


Read More...


Skeletons in their closet: Clarivate issues editorial concern but takes no further action

(11 December 2018) When Bone Research received its first Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in 2014 (a meager score of 1.310), it didn’t receive much notice. The following year, Bone Research‘s JIF more than doubled to 3.549, then nearly tripled to 9.326 in 2016. This year, it received a score 12.354. It now is ranked second […]


Read More...


Multiple ACS journals earn their highest-ever Impact Factor in 2017 Journal Citation Reports®

(28 June 2018) The newly-released 2017 Journal Citation Reports® from Clarivate Analytics show ACS journals continue to be the most-cited and most-impactful publications in their fields, including the six core chemistry categories. ACS journal articles were cited more than 3.1 million times in 2017, an increase of 8% compared with the previous year. The median […]


Read More...


False investigators and coercive citation are widespread in academic research

(5 March 2018) A recent study has revealed widespread unethical behaviour in academic research. Allen Wilhite focuses on two activities in particular; the addition to funding proposals of investigators not expected to contribute to the research, and editors who coerce authors to add citations to manuscripts even though those citations were not part of the scholars’ reference […]


Read More...


Impact Factors: an Academy of Management report on measuring scholarly impact

(2 March 2018) What constitutes scholarly impact? And which stakeholders have importance for research? Usha Haley shares findings of a recent Academy of Management report that sought answers to these questions by surveying its 20,000 members and conducting a selection of in-depth interviews with prominent figures. A majority of respondents indicated journal rankings did not […]


Read More...


Google Scholar is a serious alternative to Web of Science

(16 March 2016) Many bibliometricians and university administrators remain wary of Google Scholar citation data, preferring “the gold standard” of Web of Science instead. Anne-Wil Harzing, who developed the Publish or Perish software that uses Google Scholar data, sets out to challenge some of the misconceptions about this data source and explain why it offers […]


Read More...


Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival

(8 December 2016) Elsevier’s CiteScore uses a larger database — and provides different results for the quality of journals. Richard Van Noorden writes in Nature that one of science’s most contentious metrics has a flashy new rival. On 8 December, publishing giant Elsevier launched the CiteScore index to assess the quality of academic journals. Although […]


Read More...


New metrics from Elsevier will make journal assessment more complete and transparent

CiteScore metrics are calculated using Scopus data for over 22,200 journal titles in 330 disciplines. The largest discipline is General Medicine, with 1,549 titles. (8 December 2016)  In response to academia’s call for metrics that provide a broader, more transparent view of an academic journal’s citation impact, Scopus has developed a set of metrics that […]


Read More...


Rapid growth in high-quality research outputs shows China is consolidating position as scientific powerhouse

(27 July 2016) The Nature Index 2016 Rising Stars supplement identifies the countries and institutions showing the most significant growth in high-quality research publications, using the power of the Nature Index, which tracks the research of more than 8,000 global institutions. These are the players to watch. It shows that Chinese institutions are leading the […]


Read More...


ACS journals most cited

(18 June 2016) The 2015 Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) from Thomson Reuters reaffirm that ACS journals are again the most cited and/or impactful in 14 scientific categories, including 6 core chemistry categories. Key highlights from the data include: ACS journals are #1 in Impact Factor or citations in 6 core chemistry categories: Analytical, Applied, Inorganic & […]


Read More...


Thomson Reuters unveils 2016 ranking of most influential scientific journals

More than 11,000 journals in 81 counties receive their Journal Impact Factor (13 June 2016, Alexandria, Va.) The Intellectual Property & Science business of Thomson Reuters announced the 2016 update of its Journal Citation Reports® (JCR), the world’s most influential resource for evaluating peer-reviewed publications and the source of annual journal metrics, including the Journal Impact […]


Read More...


Ruth’s Rankings 16: The much maligned Journal Impact Factor

By Ruth A. Pagell* (12 January 2016) Citation counts are core bibliometric indicators used by rankers to measure scholarly impact and administrators to measure faculty output. Questions that follow are: Is being cited enough, or do you have to be cited in a high impact source? And if a “high impact” source is desired, how […]


Read More...


2014 Journal Impact Factors

(18 June 2015) The 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) was released 18 June 2015. In an article for  the scholarly kitchen,  Phil Davis comments on the Journal Impact Factor noting that 272 journals will receive their first Impact Factor. He also describes two new complementary calculations: the JIF Percentile and the Normalized […]


Read More...


China must restructure its academic incentives to curb research fraud

(7 April 2015) “The idealised view of science as the curiosity-driven pursuit of knowledge to understand and improve the world around us has been tarnished,” write Scott Edmunds and Rob Davidson. “Recent news tells of systematic fraud and mass retraction of research papers from the Chinese academic system, and allegations of attempts to game the […]


Read More...