IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v95y2013i2d10.1007_s11192-012-0929-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor

Author

Listed:
  • P. Dorta-González

    (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

  • M. I. Dorta-González

    (Universidad de La Laguna)

Abstract

The journal Impact Factor (IF) is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In this work, a decomposing of the field aggregate impact factor into five normally distributed variables is presented. Considering these factors, a principal component analysis is employed to find the sources of the variance in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) subject categories of science and social science. Although publication and citation behaviour differs largely across disciplines, principal components explain more than 78 % of the total variance and the average number of references per paper is not the primary factor explaining the variance in impact factors across categories. The categories normalized impact factor based on the JCR subject category list is proposed and compared with the IF. This normalization is achieved by considering all the indexing categories of each journal. An empirical application, with one hundred journals in two or more subject categories of economics and business, shows that the gap between rankings is reduced around 32 % in the journals analyzed. This gap is obtained as the maximum distance among the ranking percentiles from all categories where each journal is included.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0929-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0929-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0929-9
    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/s11192-012-0929-9?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. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2010. "The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1476-1486, July.
    2. Martin Rosvall & Carl T Bergstrom, 2010. "Mapping Change in Large Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, January.
    3. Moed, Henk F., 2010. "Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 265-277.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff, 2006. "Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal‐journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(5), pages 601-613, March.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2010. "Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(11), pages 2365-2369, November.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(2), pages 217-229, February.
    7. Opthof, Tobias & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2010. "Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 423-430.
    8. Benjamin M. Althouse & Jevin D. West & Carl T. Bergstrom & Theodore Bergstrom, 2009. "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 27-34, January.
    9. Ismael Rafols & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Content‐based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(9), pages 1823-1835, September.
    10. van Raan, Anthony F.J. & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S. & van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2010. "Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 431-435.
    11. Leydesdorff, Loet & Rafols, Ismael, 2011. "Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 87-100.
    12. Ludo Waltman & Erjia Yan & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 301-314, October.
    13. Narongrit Sombatsompop & Teerasak Markpin, 2005. "Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 676-683, May.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff & Jung C. Shin, 2011. "How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1146-1155, June.
    15. Michel Zitt & Henry Small, 2008. "Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1856-1860, September.
    16. Alexander I. Pudovkin & Eugene Garfield, 2002. "Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(13), pages 1113-1119, November.
    17. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    18. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2010. "The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1476-1486, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Yutao Sun & Cong Cao, 2020. "The dynamics of the studies of China’s science, technology and innovation (STI): a bibliometric analysis of an emerging field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1335-1365, August.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran, 2023. "Contextual Ψ-index and its estimate for contextual productivity assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4875-4886, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Tomislav Korman & Tomislav Malvić & Vasyl Lozynskyi & Zlatko Briševac & Zoran Kovač & Lidia Hrnčević & Krešimir Pavlić, 2024. "Mining and Mineral Processing Journals in the WoS and Their Rankings When Merging SCIEx and ESCI Databases—Case Study Based on the JCR 2022 Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Yutao Sun & Seamus Grimes, 2016. "The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 17-40, January.
    9. Juan María Hernández & Pablo Dorta-González, 2020. "Interdisciplinarity Metric Based on the Co-Citation Network," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-8, April.
    10. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Dietmar Wolfram, 2018. "Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1017-1037, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Kaile Gong & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2019. "The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1439-1460, September.
    13. Sánchez-Gil, Susana & Gorraiz, Juan & Melero-Fuentes, David, 2018. "Reference density trends in the major disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 42-58.
    14. Chen, Kuan-Ming & Jen, Tsung-Hau & Wu, Margaret, 2014. "Estimating the accuracies of journal impact factor through bootstrap," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 181-196.
    15. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    16. 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.

    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. Dorta-González, P. & Dorta-González, M.I., 2013. "Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 593-602.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 355-365, August.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    7. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou & Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 96-107, January.
    9. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
    10. Liwei Cai & Jiahao Tian & Jiaying Liu & Xiaomei Bai & Ivan Lee & Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia, 2019. "Scholarly impact assessment: a survey of citation weighting solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 453-478, February.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2012. "A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 745-748, February.
    12. Tolga Yuret, 2018. "Author-weighted impact factor and reference return ratio: can we attain more equality among fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2097-2111, September.
    13. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2013. "Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 699-716, September.
    14. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S., 2013. "Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 272-285.
    15. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2013. "A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 833-849.
    16. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.
    17. Tom Z. J. Fu & Qianqian Song & Dah Ming Chiu, 2014. "The academic social network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 203-239, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Ludo Waltman & Erjia Yan & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 301-314, October.
    20. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, 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:95:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0929-9. 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.