Are Article Influence Scores Comparable across Scientific Fields?

Authors

  • Julie Arendt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2511

Abstract

The Impact Factors provided in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have been used as a tool for librarians, authors and administrators to assess the relative importance of journals. One limitation of the Impact Factor is that the values are not comparable across different fields of research. JCR now also includes Article Influence Scores. One of the reputed advantages of the Article Influence Score is that it takes into account differences in the citation patterns between fields, allowing for better comparisons across different fields. This study investigates the ability of the Article Influence Score to provide this advantage by comparing the Impact Factors and Article Influence Scores of 172 fields listed in the JCR Science Edition. Although the range of Article Influence Scores across different fields is less extreme than the range of Impact Factors, Article Influence Scores still display large differences across fields. The Article Influence Scores of scientific fields correlate with their Impact Factors. The scientific fields that have journals with higher Impact Factors also have journals with higher Article Influence Scores. For practical applications, the large disciplinary differences that persist in the Article Influence Score limit its utility for comparing journals across different fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Althouse, B.M., West, J.D., Bergstrom, C.T. & Bergstrom, T. 2009. Differences in impact factor across fields over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(1):27-34.

Bergstrom, C. 2007. Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. C&RL News 68(5). [Online]. Available {http://crln.acrl.org/content/68/5/314.full.pdf+html?sid=aa60da87-9257-4689-b14c-d8521b339bcc} [Accessed June 22, 2009].

Bergstrom, C. 2009. Eigenfactor.org: Ranking and mapping scientific knowledge. [Online]. Available: http://www.eigenfactor.org/ [Accessed June 17, 2009].

Bergstrom, C.T. & West, J.D. 2008. Assessing citations with EigenfactorTM metrics. Neurology 71(23):1850-1851.

Cleaton-Jones, P. & Myers, G. 2002. A method for comparison of biomedical publication quality across ISI discipline categories. Journal of Dental Education 66(6): 690-696.

Davis, P.M. 2008. Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(13):2186-2188.

Garfield, E. 1996. Fortnightly review: How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 313(7054):411-413.

Garfield, E. 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: June 23, 2009].

Moed, H.F., Burger, W.J.M., Frankfort, J.G. & Van Raan, A.F.J. 1985. The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics 8(3-4):177-203.

Moed, H.F., Van Leeuwen, Th. N. & Reedijk, J. 1999. Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics 46(3):575-589.

Monatstersky, R. 2005. The number that's devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education 52(8). [Online]. Available {http://chronicle.com/article/The-Number-That-s-Devouring/26481} [Accessed June 24, 2009].

Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S. & Castellano, C. 2008. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. PNAS 105(45):17268-17272.

Ramírez, A.M., García, E.O. & Del Río, J.A. 2000. Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics 47(1):3-9.

Schubert, A. & Braun, T. 1996. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36(3):311-324.

Seglen, P.O. 1992. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(9):628-638.

Seglen, P.O. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314(7079):497.

Sombatsompop, N., Markpin, T., & 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.

Sombatsompop, N. & Markpin, T. 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.

Thomson Reuters 2009. Journal Citation Reports. [Online]. Subscription database: http://www.isiknowledge.com/ [Accessed June 10, 2009].

Vinkler, P. 1991. Possible causes of differences in information impact of journals from different subfields. Scientometrics 20(1):145-161.

Wagner, A.B. 2009. Percentile-based journal impact factors: A neglected collection development tool. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 57. [Online]. Available: http://www.istl.org/09-spring/refereed1.html [Accessed June 15, 2009].

West, J. & Bergstrom, C.T. 2008. Pseudocode for calculating EigenfactorTM Score and Article InfluenceTM Score using data from Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports. [Online]. Available: {http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/people/jevin/Documents/JournalPseudocode_EF.pdf} [Accessed June 15, 2009].

Downloads

Published

2010-03-01

How to Cite

Arendt, J. (2010). Are Article Influence Scores Comparable across Scientific Fields?. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (60). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2511

Issue

Section

Refereed Articles
Share |