IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0135583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Xue-Li Liu
  • Shuang-Shuang Gai
  • Shi-Le Zhang
  • Pu Wang

Abstract

Background: An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. Methods: The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor’s definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. Results: Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals’ impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. Research Limitations: Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. Originality/ Value: We designed the survey questionnaire ourselves, specifically to assess the real influence of journals. We used peer-reviewed scores to judge the journal evaluation effect of impact factors with different citation time windows. The main purpose of this study was to help researchers better understand the role of impact factors with different citation time windows in journal evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Xue-Li Liu & Shuang-Shuang Gai & Shi-Le Zhang & Pu Wang, 2015. "An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135583
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135583
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135583&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0135583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pablo Dorta-González & María Isabel Dorta-González & Rafael Suárez-Vega, 2015. "An approach to the author citation potential: measures of scientific performance which are invariant across scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1467-1496, February.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2133-2146, November.
    3. Dorta-González, Pablo & Dorta-González, María Isabel & Santos-Peñate, Dolores Rosa & Suárez-Vega, Rafael, 2014. "Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 406-418.
    4. Narongrit Sombatsompop & T. Markpin & N. Premkamolnetr, 2004. "A modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997–2001," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 217-235, June.
    5. Fuyuki Yoshikane & Takafumi Suzuki, 2014. "Diversity of fields in patent citations: synchronic and diachronic changes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1879-1897, March.
    6. E. Garfield & I. H. Sher, 1963. "New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 195-201, July.
    7. Juan Miguel Campanario & María Angeles Coslado, 2011. "Benford’s law and citations, articles and impact factors of scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 421-432, August.
    8. P. Dorta-González & M. I. Dorta-González, 2013. "Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 645-672, May.
    9. Adriano B L Tort & Zé H Targino & Olavo B Amaral, 2012. "Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    10. Jacques Rizkallah & Don D Sin, 2010. "Integrative Approach to Quality Assessment of Medical Journals Using Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    2. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    4. David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2012. "Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 395-401, August.
    5. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Juan Gorraiz & Ursula Ulrych & Wolfgang Glänzel & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2022. "Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: an alternative to Garfield’s impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7229-7251, December.
    7. Zhou, Ping & Zhong, Yongfeng, 2012. "The citation-based indicator and combined impact indicator—New options for measuring impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 631-638.
    8. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    9. Fang Xu & Wenbin Liu & Ronald Rousseau, 2015. "Introducing sub-impact factor (SIF-) sequences and an aggregated SIF-indicator for journal ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1577-1593, February.
    10. A. Ferrer-Sapena & E. A. Sánchez-Pérez & L. M. González & F. Peset & R. Aleixandre-Benavent, 2015. "Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2089-2108, December.
    11. J. M. Calabuig & A. Ferrer-Sapena & E. A. Sánchez-Pérez, 2016. "Vector-valued impact measures and generation of specific indexes for research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1425-1443, September.
    12. Sara M. González-Betancor & Pablo Dorta-González, 2019. "Publication modalities ‘article in press’ and ‘open access’ in relation to journal average citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1209-1223, September.
    13. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    14. Vinkler, Péter, 2014. "The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 340-348.
    15. Kaur, Jasleen & Radicchi, Filippo & Menczer, Filippo, 2013. "Universality of scholarly impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 924-932.
    16. Juan A Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.
    17. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Maurizio Galetto & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2012. "The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 621-641, September.
    18. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    19. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2012. "Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 336-345.
    20. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.