IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v108y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2034-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does high impact factor successfully predict future citations? An analysis using Peirce’s measure

Author

Listed:
  • Gangan Prathap

    (CSIR National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology)

  • S. Mini

    (CSIR National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology)

  • P. Nishy

    (CSIR National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology)

Abstract

Journals are routinely evaluated by journal impact factors. However, more controversially, these same impact factors are often used to evaluate authors and groups as well. A more meaningful approach will be to use actual citation rates. Since in each journal there is a very highly skewed distribution of articles according to citation rates, there is little correlation between journal impact factor and actual citation rate of articles from individual scientists or research groups. Simply stated, journal impact factor does not successfully predict high citations in future. In this paper, we propose the use of Peirce’s measure of predictive success (Peirce in Science 4(93):453–454, 1884) to see if the use of journal impact factors to predict high citation rates is acceptable or not. It is seen that this measure is independent of Pearson’s correlation (Seglen 1997) and gives a more quantitative refinement of the Type I and Type II classification of Smith (Financ Manag 133–149, 2004). The measures are used to examine the portfolios of some active scientists. It is clear that the journal impact factor is not effective in predicting future citations of successful authors.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangan Prathap & S. Mini & P. Nishy, 2016. "Does high impact factor successfully predict future citations? An analysis using Peirce’s measure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1043-1047, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:108:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2034-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2034-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2034-y
    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/s11192-016-2034-y?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. Per O. Seglen, 1994. "Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 45(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Stanley D. Smith, 2004. "Is an Article in a Top Journal a Top Article?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 33(4), Winter.
    3. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    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. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Mingyang Wang & Shijia Jiao & Kah-Hin Chai & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Building journal’s long-term impact: using indicators detected from the sustained active articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 261-283, October.
    3. Hans van Dijk & Marino van Zelst, 2020. "Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, March.

    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. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    2. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2012. "Properties of journal impact in relation to bibliometric research group performance indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 457-469, August.
    3. Péter Vinkler, 2009. "Introducing the Current Contribution Index for characterizing the recent, relevant impact of journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 409-420, May.
    4. Gordon Rogers & Martin Szomszor & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "Sample size in bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 777-794, October.
    5. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    6. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    7. Vieira, E.S. & Gomes, J.A.N.F., 2010. "Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13.
    8. Lin Zhang & Ronald Rousseau & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2017. "Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2011. "Bibliometric rankings of journals based on Impact Factors: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 75-86.
    10. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    11. Christin Katharina Kreutz & Premtim Sahitaj & Ralf Schenkel, 2020. "Evaluating semantometrics from computer science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2915-2954, December.
    12. Maite Barrios & Angel Borrego & Andreu Vilaginés & Candela Ollé & Marta Somoza, 2008. "A bibliometric study of psychological research on tourism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(3), pages 453-467, December.
    13. Dag W. Aksnes & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2004. "The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(2), pages 213-224, February.
    14. Julia Osca-Lluch & Elena Velasco & Mayte López & Julia Haba, 2009. "Co-authorship and citation networks in Spanish history of science research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 373-383, August.
    15. Péter Vinkler, 2011. "Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1963-1978, October.
    16. Hui Fang, 2023. "A modification of citation-based journal indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1119-1132, February.
    17. Wang, Qi & Sandström, Ulf, 2014. "Defining the Role of Cognitive Distance in the Peer Review Process: Explorative Study of a Grant Scheme in Infection Biology," INDEK Working Paper Series 2014/10, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics and Management.
    18. Müller, Harry, 2012. "Die Zitationshäufigkeit als Qualitätsindikator im Rahmen der Forschungsleistungsmessung," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    19. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    20. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.

    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:108:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2034-y. 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.