A Dashboard-based Comparison of Author Impact Factors in JMIR Serious Games: A Bibliometric Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsair-Wei Chien ◽  
Willy Cho ◽  
Hsien-Yi Wang
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Serious Games ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Google Maps ◽  
Academic Fields ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Highly Cited

BACKGROUND Much emphasis continues to be placed on the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) typically used as a surrogate marker of quality of both the article and journal. The most pernicious aspect of this culture has been a practice of using journal impact factors as a basis for assessment of individual researchers’ achievements. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to develop a scheme for quantifying author contributions which can be applied to calculate the author impact factor (AIF). METHODS We obtained 85 abstracts since 2013 from Medline by searching the keywords of ("JMIR Serious Games[Journal]) (JSG for short) on June 30, 2018. An authorship-weighted scheme (AWS) was used for quantifying coauthor contributions and calculating AIF. We plotted the clusters, including (i) international author collaborations, (ii) the most highly-cited authors who published in JSG, and (iii) the AIFs for all authors located on dashboards using social network analysis(SNA) and Google Maps to display, RESULTS This study found that (i) the most number of papers are from the U.S.( 28, 32.9%) and the U.K. (11,12.9 %), (ii) the AWS can be easily applied to JSG for calculating AIF, (iii) the most cited author in JSG is Alaa AlMarshedi (=11.44=weighted publications), two authors(i.e., Abdulrahman Abdulla El-Hilly and Andreas BEl-Hilly Eisingerich) have the highest AIF(=13.75), and (iv) the AWS-based AIF can be easily displayed on Google Maps in comparison. CONCLUSIONS The AIFs incorporated with SNA shown on Google Maps provide insight into the relationships between citable and cited achievements for authors. The AWS-based AIF can be applied to other academic fields for understanding the most highly cited authors in a discipline. CLINICALTRIAL Not available

scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor and its discontents: steps toward responsible metrics and better research assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Roberto F. Arruda ◽  
Robin Champieux ◽  
Colleen Cook ◽  
Mary Ellen K. Davis ◽  
Richard Gedye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
Journal Impact

A small, self-selected discussion group was convened to consider issues surrounding impact factors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a particular focus on research assessment. The group’s report notes that the widespread use, or perceived use, of the JIF in research assessment processes lends the metric a degree of influence that is not justified on the basis of its validity for those purposes, and retards moves to open scholarship in a number of ways. The report concludes that indicators, including those based on citation counts, can be combined with peer review to inform research assessment, but that the JIF is not one of those indicators. It also concludes that there is already sufficient information about the shortcomings of the JIF, and that instead actions should be pursued to build broad momentum away from its use in research assessment. These actions include practical support for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by research funders, higher education institutions, national academies, publishers and learned societies. They also include the creation of an international “metrics lab” to explore the potential of new indicators, and the wide sharing of information on this topic among stakeholders. Finally, the report acknowledges that the JIF may continue to be used as one indicator of the quality of journals, and makes recommendations how this should be improved.OSI2016 Workshop Question: Impact FactorsTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

scholarly journals Evaluations as value-measurement links: Exploring metrics and meanings in science

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-300
Author(s):  
Felicitas Hesselmann ◽  
Cornelia Schendzielorz
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Theoretical Concept ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Value Measurement ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Insight Into

This contribution seeks to provide a more detailed insight into the entanglement of value and measurement. Drawing on insights from semiotics and a Bourdieusian perspective on language as an economy of linguistic exchange, we develop the theoretical concept of value-measurement links and distinguish three processes – operationalisation, nomination, and indetermination – as forms in which these links can be constructed. We illustrate these three processes using (e)valuation practices in science, particularly the journal impact factor, as an empirical object of investigation. As this example illustrates, measured values can function as building blocks for further measurements, and thus establish chains of evaluations, where it becomes more and more obscure which values the measurements actually express. We conclude that in the case of measured values such as impact factors, these chains are driven by the interplay between the interpretative openness of language and the seeming tendency of numbers to fixate meaning thus continually re-creating, transforming and modifying values.

Journal impact factor: A valid symbol of journal quality?

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 734-742
Author(s):  
Rob Law ◽  
Daniel Leung
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Citation Frequency ◽  
Journal Impact

As the citation frequency of a journal is a representation of how many people have read and acknowledged their works, academia generally shares the notion that impact factor and citation data signify the quality and importance of a journal to the discipline. Although this notion is well-entrenched, is it reasonable to deduce that a journal is not of good quality due to its lower impact factor? Do journal impact factors truly symbolize the quality of a journal? What must be noted when we interpret journal impact factors? This commentary article discusses these questions and their answers thoroughly.

scholarly journals Research Counts, Not the Journal

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tiago Ribeiro ◽  
Ana Sousa ◽  
Eva Olivia Leontien Lantsoght
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Critical Overview ◽  
Research Quality Assessment ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Better Than

‘If there is one thing every bibliometrician agrees, is that you should never use the journal impact factor (JIF) to evaluate research performance for an article or an individual – that is a mortal sin’. Few sentences could define so precisely the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) better than Anthony van Raan’s. This manuscript presents a critical overview on the international use, by governments and institutions, of the JIF and/or journal indexing information for individual research quality assessment. Interviews given by Nobel Laureates speaking on this matter are partially illustrated in this work. Furthermore, the authors propose complementary and alternative versions of the journal impact factor, respectively named Complementary (CIF) and Timeless (TIF) Impact Factors, aiming to better assess the average quality of a journal – never of a paper or an author. The idea behind impact factors is not useless, it has just been misused.

scholarly journals How Good Is Good Enough? - The Value of Impact Factor in Determining the Quality of Biomedical Research: A Review of Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mir Ibrahim Sajid ◽  
Hafsa Khan Tareen ◽  
Samira Shabbir Balouch ◽  
Syed Muhammad Awais
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Job Security ◽  
Mathematical Equation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

The Journal Impact Factor is a Science Citation Index developed metric to evaluate the citations an article receives over a period of two years and serves as a surrogate marker to evaluate the quality of biomedical research. However, even though the calculation seems to be a straightforward mathematical equation, multiple confounders artificially impact the score- such as citing behavior, the region and language the journal is published in, and the ‘tip of the iceberg’ phenomenon. Despite an increase in metrics developed to alternatively gauge the prestige of research and the researcher- such as Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score and Google PageRank, the impact factor remains an essential instrument in dictating the scientist’s future in terms of job security, tenure extension, grant approval, and acquiring bonus, both hierarchical and monetary

scholarly journals Research Quality and Newsworthiness of Published Articles are Partial Predictors of Journal Impact Factors

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Jason Martin
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Validation Set ◽  
Literature Service ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Mcmaster University

Objective – Determine what characteristics of a journal’s published articles can be used to predict the journal impact factor (JIF). Design – A retrospective cohort study. Setting – The researchers are located at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Subjects – The sample consisted of 1,267 clinical research articles from 103 evidence based and clinical journals which were published in 2005 and indexed in the McMaster University Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) database and those same journals’ JIF from 2007. Method – The articles were divided 60:40 into a derivation set (760 articles and 99 journals) and a validation set (507 articles and 88 journals). Ten variables which could influence JIF were developed and a multiple linear regression was run on the derivation set and then applied to the validation set. Main Results – The four variables found to be significant were the number of databases which indexed the journal, the number of authors, the quality of research, and the “newsworthiness” of the journal’s published articles. Conclusion – The quality of research and newsworthiness at time of publication of a journal’s articles can predict the journal impact factor with 60% accuracy.

scholarly journals Research Counts, Not the Journal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tiago Ribeiro ◽  
Ana Sousa ◽  
Eva Olivia Leontien Lantsoght
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Critical Overview ◽  
Research Quality Assessment ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Better Than

If there is one thing every bibliometrician agrees, is that you should never use the journal impact factor (JIF) to evaluate research performance for an article or an individual-that is a mortal sin'. Few sentences could define so precisely the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) better than Anthony van Raan's. This manuscript presents a critical overview on the international use, by governments and institutions, of the JIF and/or journal indexing information for individual research quality assessment. Interviews given by Nobel Laureates speaking on this matter are partially illustrated in this work. Furthermore, the authors propose complementary and alternative versions of the journal impact factor, respectively named Complementary (CIF) and Timeless (TIF) Impact Factors, aiming to better assess the average quality of a journal-never of a paper or an author. The idea behind impact factors is not useless, it has just been misused.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

scholarly journals Impact Factors Workgroup Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Allard ◽  
Ali Andalibi ◽  
Patty Baskin ◽  
Marilyn Billings ◽  
Eric Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

Following up on recommendations from OSI 2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?

scholarly journals Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Economics Journal ◽  
Uncertainty Measures ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document