Percentile-Based Journal Impact Factors: A Neglected Collection Development Metric.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2476Abstract
Various normalization techniques to transform journal impact factors (JIFs) into a standard scale or range of values have been reported a number of times in the literature, but have seldom been part of collection development librarians' tool kits. In this paper, JIFs as reported in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database are converted to percentiles (0%-100%) using Microsoft Excel's PERCENTRANK function. This permits a more intuitive evaluation of journal ranking within JCR subject categories and broader disciplines. The top journal by impact factor in any category is set to 100% while the lowest impact factor journal is set to 0% with all other journals on the list scaled according to their rank. Percentile-based impact factors (PIFs) also allow valid cross-disciplinary comparisons of impact factors, something not possible using JIFs. Finally, since a given journal title is often assigned to multiple subject categories, the relative impact of the same journal title can be compared and evaluated across each of those categories. This paper argues that PIFs should become a standard component of journal collection evaluation projects. The history, use, and misuse of impact factors are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Downloads
References
Adler, Robert, Ewing, John, and Taylor, Peter. 2008. Citation Statistics. [Online]. Available: {http://www.ams.org/ewing/Documents/CitationStatistics-FINAL-1.pdf} [Accessed: February 24, 2009].
Amin, M., and Mabe, M.. 2000. Impact factor: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (1):1-6.
Balaban, A. T. 1996. How should citations to articles in high- and low-impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth? Scientometrics 37 (3):495-498.
Bornmann, Lutz, Mutz, Rudiger, Neuhaus, Christoph, and Daniel, Hans-Dieter. 2008. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (1):93-102.
Campbell, Philip. 2008. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1):5-6.
Cleaton-Jones, Peter, and Myers, Glenda. 2002. A method for comparison of biomedical publication quality across ISI discipline categories. Journal of Dental Education 66 (6):690-6.
Coelho, P. M. Z., et al.. 2003. The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 36(12):1605-1612.
Council on Scientific and Industrial Research [CSIR]. 1987. Research output analysis. Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre [INSDOC]: New Delhi, India.
Fassoulaki, A., et al.. 2002. Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 46 (7):902-905.
Garfield, Eugene. 2005. The agony and the ecstasy: the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. [Online]. Available: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf [Accessed: May 1, 2009].
Gonzalez-Sagrado, M., et al.. 2008. Evaluation of two methods for correcting the impact factor using the investigation done at the "Del Rio Hortega" University Hospital (1999-2004) as the data source. Nutricion Hospitalaria 23(2):111-118.
Harnad, Stevan. 2008. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1):103-107.
Lawrence, Peter A. 2003. The politics of publication. Nature 422 (6929):259-261.
Maunder, R. G. 2007. Using publication statistics for evaluation in academic psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie 52:790-797.
Monastersky, Richard. 2005. The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (8):A12-A17.
Nagpaul, P. S. 1995. Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature - a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics 32 (1):11-36.
Radicchi, Filippo, Fortunato, Santo, and Castellano, Claudio. 2008. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (45):17268-17272.
Ramirez, A. M., Garcia, E. O., and Del Rio, J. A.. 2000. Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics 47 (1):3-9.
Rostami-Hodjegan, A., and Tucker, G. T.. 2001. Journal impact factors: a "bioequivalence" issue? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 51 (2):111-117.
Rousseau, R. 2005. Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators. Scientometrics 63 (3):431-441.
Schwartz, S., and Hellin, J. L. 1996. Measuring the impact of scientific publications. The case of the biomedical sciences. Scientometrics 35 (1):119-132.
Sen, B. K. 1992. Documentation Note: Normalized Impact Factor. Journal of Documentation 48 (3):318-325.
Simons, K. 2008. The misused impact factor. Science 322 (5899):165-165.
Solari, A., and Magri, M. H. 2000. A new approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a system for evaluating scientific journals. Scientometrics 47 (3):605-625.
Sombatsompop, N., and T. Markpin. 2005. Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56 (7):676-683.
Sombatsompop, N., Markpin, T., and Premkamolnetr, N. 2004. A modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997-2001. Scientometrics 60 (2):217-235.
Tang, J. L., Wong, T. W., and Liu, J. L. Y. 1999. Adjusted impact factors for comparisons between disciplines. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53 (11):739-740.
Thomson Scientific. 2008. Preserving the Integrity of the Journal Impact Factor Guidelines from the Scientific business of Thomson Reuters [Blog Entry]. [Online]. Available: http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/t5/blogs/blogarticlepage/blog-id/citation/article-id/14#M14 [Accessed: May 1, 2009].
Todd, Peter A., and Ladle, Richard J. 2008. Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (1):13-16.
Ugolini, D., Bogliolo, A., Parodi, S., Casilli, C., and Santi, L. 1997. Assessing research productivity in an oncology research institute: The role of the documentation center. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 85 (1):33-38.
Ugolini, D., Parodi, S., and Santi, L. 1997. Analysis of publication quality in a cancer research institute. Scientometrics 38 (2):265-274.
Vinkler, P. 1991. Possible Causes of Differences in Information Impact of Journals from Different Subfields. Scientometrics 20 (1):145-161.
Wallin, J. A. 2005. Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 97 (5):261-275.
Ward, R. K., Cbristensen, J. O., and Spackman, E. 2006. A systematic approach for evaluating and upgrading academic science journal collections. Serials Review 32 (1):4-16.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 A. Ben Wagner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
