IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1821-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals

Author

Listed:
  • Weishu Liu

    (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)

  • Guangyuan Hu

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

  • Mengdi Gu

    (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)

Abstract

As an alternative metric of journal impact factor (JIF), journal impact factor quartile is increasingly adopted to compare the research impact of journals within and across different domains. We adopt both optimistic and pessimistic approaches to illustrate the JIF distributions of journals listed in the 2015 Journal Citation Reports. We find that at least one-third of Web of Science publications are actually published in the first quartile (high impact factor journals). In comparison, at most 16.5 % of publications are published in the fourth quartile (low impact factor journals). We argue that Bornmann and Marx’s (Scientometrics 98(1):487–509, 2014) claim that “One can expect that 25 % of a researcher’s publications have been published in the first quartile” is not precise.

Suggested Citation

  • Weishu Liu & Guangyuan Hu & Mengdi Gu, 2016. "The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1273-1276, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1821-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1821-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1821-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1821-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li Tang & Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie, 2015. "Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation Increases?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1923-1932, September.
    2. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Félix Moya-Anegón & Elena Corera-Álvarez, 2015. "Somes patterns of Cuban scientific publication in Scopus: the current situation and challenges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 779-794, June.
    3. Ping Zhou & Xiaozan Lv, 2015. "Academic publishing and collaboration between China and Germany in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1875-1887, December.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    5. Alfonso Ibáñez & Concha Bielza & Pedro Larrañaga, 2013. "Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 689-716, May.
    6. Tang, Li, 2013. "Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 330-344.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kosyakov, Denis & Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2024. "“I'd like to publish in Q1, but there's no Q1 to be found”: Study of journal quartile distributions across subject categories and topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Williams, Richard, 2017. "Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 788-799.
    3. Yaşar Tonta & Müge Akbulut, 2020. "Does monetary support increase citation impact of scholarly papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1617-1641, November.
    4. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Tang, Li, 2019. "Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 444-461.
    5. Shannon Mason & Lenandlar Singh, 2022. "When a journal is both at the ‘top’ and the ‘bottom’: the illogicality of conflating citation-based metrics with quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3683-3694, June.
    6. Mina Moradzadeh & Shahram Sedghi & Sirous Panahi, 2023. "Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 279-321, January.
    7. Lei Lei & Yunmei Sun, 2020. "Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1697-1706, March.
    8. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu, 2021. "The citation impact of articles from which authors gained monetary rewards based on journal metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4941-4974, June.
    9. Minxian Zheng & Kuangji Zhao & Shikui Zhao & Yantong Zhang, 2020. "Effecting variables of journal’s ranking in forestry field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 135-151, October.
    10. Gabriel-Alexandru Vȋiu & Mihai Păunescu, 2021. "The lack of meaningful boundary differences between journal impact factor quartiles undermines their independent use in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1495-1525, February.
    11. Fang Liu & Guangyuan Hu & Li Tang & Weishu Liu, 2018. "The penalty of containing more non-English articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 359-366, January.
    12. Wenting Yang & Jiantong Zhang & Ruolin Ma, 2020. "The Prediction of Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Weishu Liu & Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu, 2017. "Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 355-364, January.
    14. Ying Huang & Donghua Zhu & Qi Lv & Alan L. Porter & Douglas K. R. Robinson & Xuefeng Wang, 2017. "Early insights on the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): an overlay map-based bibliometric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 2041-2057, June.
    15. Ruben Miranda & Esther Garcia-Carpintero, 2019. "Comparison of the share of documents and citations from different quartile journals in 25 research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 479-501, October.
    16. Sampada Tavse & Vijayakumar Varadarajan & Mrinal Bachute & Shilpa Gite & Ketan Kotecha, 2022. "A Systematic Literature Review on Applications of GAN-Synthesized Images for Brain MRI," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-33, November.
    17. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.

    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. Weishu Liu & Li Tang & Mengdi Gu & Guangyuan Hu, 2015. "Feature report on China: a bibliometric analysis of China-related articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 503-517, January.
    2. Kosyakov, Denis & Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2024. "“I'd like to publish in Q1, but there's no Q1 to be found”: Study of journal quartile distributions across subject categories and topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    3. Wang, Guoyan & Hu, Guangyuan & Li, Chuanfeng & Tang, Li, 2018. "Long live the scientists: Tracking the scientific fame of great minds in physics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1089-1098.
    4. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.
    5. Ruben Miranda & Esther Garcia-Carpintero, 2019. "Comparison of the share of documents and citations from different quartile journals in 25 research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 479-501, October.
    6. Xue Yang & Xin Gu & Yuandi Wang & Guangyuan Hu & Li Tang, 2015. "The Matthew effect in China’s science: evidence from academicians of Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2089-2105, March.
    7. Liu, Weishu & Hu, Guangyuan & Tang, Li & Wang, Yuandi, 2015. "China's global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 555-569.
    8. Lili Yuan & Yanni Hao & Minglu Li & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "Who are the international research collaboration partners for China? A novel data perspective based on NSFC grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 401-422, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    11. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Purposeful Evaluation of Scholarship in the Open Science Era," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, February.
    12. Jinyuan Ma & Fan Jiang & Liujian Gu & Xiang Zheng & Xiao Lin & Chuanyi Wang, 2020. "Patterns of the Network of Cross-Border University Research Collaboration in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.
    14. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    15. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    16. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    17. Xiaowen Xi & Jiaqi Wei & Ying Guo & Weiyu Duan, 2022. "Academic collaborations: a recommender framework spanning research interests and network topology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6787-6808, November.
    18. Albarrán, Pedro & Herrero, Carmen & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Villar, Antonio, 2017. "The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 625-640.
    19. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    20. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.

    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:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1821-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.