%Original file available from http://www.cs.odu.edu/~jbollen/bibliographies/bibtex/infsci_IF.bib %Last update: Tuesday 14 March 2006 %Current number of entries: 41 @ARTICLE{prestige:ball2006, title = {Prestige is factored into journal ratings}, author = {Philip Ball}, year = 2006, volume = 439, number = 16, month = {February}, } @ARTICLE{rankin:meho2005, author = {Lokman I. Meho and Kristina M. Spurgin}, title = {Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods}, journal = {{J}ournal of the {A}merican {S}ociety for {I}nformation {S}cience and {T}echnology}, volume = 56, number = 12, pages = {1314--1331}, year = 2005, } @ARTICLE{index:ball2005, title = {Index aims for fair ranking of scientists}, author = {Philip Ball}, year = 2005, volume = 436, number = 900, month = {August}, } @ARTICLE{index:hirsh2005, title = {An index to quantify an individual's scientific output}, author = {J.E. Hirsch}, year =2005, journal = {arxiv.org}, volume = {physics/0508025}, } @ARTICLE{impact:weingart2005, title = {Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?}, year = 2005, author = {P. Weingart}, journal = {Scientometrics}, month = {January}, volume = {62}, number = 1, pages = {117--131}, } @ARTICLE{indica:braun1996, title = {Indicators of research output in the sciences from 5 central European countries, 1990-1994}, author = {T. Braun and T. Schubert and A. Schubert}, year = 1996, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = 38, number = 2, pages = {145--165}, } @ARTICLE{itali:calza1995, author= {L. Calza and S. Garbisa}, year = 1995, title = {Italian professorships}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {374}, number = {6522}, pages = {492--492} } @article{earlyc:adams2005, title = {Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact}, author = {Jonthan Adams}, year = 2005, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = 63, number = 3, pages = {567--581}, url = {http://sciserver.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=01389130&issue=v63i0003&article=567_ecccwai}, } @article {median:rousseau2005, title = {Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators}, author = {Ronald Rousseau}, year = 2005, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = 63, number = 3, pages = {431--441}, month = {June}, url = {http://sciserver.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=01389130&issue=v63i0003&article=431_mapifasoni} } @article{impact:saha2003, title = {Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?}, author = {Somnath Saha and Sanjay Saint}, journal = {J. Med. Libr. Assoc}, year = 2003, volume = 91, number = 1, pages = {42--46}, url = {http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=141186} } @ARTICLE{worldw:kurtz2004, title = {Worldwide Use and Impact of the {NASA} {A}strophysics {D}ata {S}ystem Digital Library}, author = {Micheal J. Kurtz and Guenther Eichhorn and Alberto Accomazzi and Carolyn S. Grant and Markus Demleitner and Stephen S. Murray}, year = 2004, journal = {{JASIST}}, volume = 56, number = 1, pages = {36--45} } @ARTICLE{bibliom:kurtz2004, title = {The Bibliometric Properties of Article Readership Information}, author = {Micheal J. Kurtz and Guenther Eichhorn and Alberto Accomazzi and Carolyn S. Grant and Markus Demleitner and Stephen S. Murray}, year = 2004, journal = {{JASIST}}, volume = 56, number = 2, pages = {111--128} } @ARTICLE{nasaas:kurtz1999, title = {The {NASA} Astrophysics Data System: Overview}, author = {Michael J. Kurtz and Guenther Eichhorn and Alberto Accomazzi and Carolyn S. Grant and Stephen S. MurraÂy and Joyce M. Watson}, year = 2000, journal = {Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.}, volume = 143, pages = {41--59}, } @ARTICLE{online:groote2001, title = {Online journals: impact on print journal usage}, author = {Sandra L. De Groote and Josephine L. Dorsch}, year = 2001, journal = {Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc.}, volume = 89, number = 4, abstract = {Purpose: The research sought to determine the impact of online journals on the use of print journals and interlibrary loan (ILL). Setting: The Library of the Health SciencesPeoria is a regional site of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Library with a print journal collection of approximately 400 titles. Since 1999, UIC site licenses have given students and faculty affiliated with UICPeoria access to more than 4,000 online full-text journal titles through the Internet. Methodology: The Library of the Health SciencesPeoria has conducted a journal-use study over an extended period of time. The information collected from this study was used to assess the impact of 104 online journals, added to the collection in January 1999, on the use of print journals. Results: Results of the statistical analysis showed print journal usage decreased significantly since the introduction of online journals (F(1,147) = 12.10, P < 0.001). This decrease occurred regardless of whether a journal was available only in print or both online and in print. Interlibrary loan requests have also significantly decreased since the introduction of online journals (F(2,30) = 4.46, P < 0.02). Conclusions: The decrease in use of the print collection suggests that many patrons prefer to access journals online. The negative impact the online journals have had on the use of the journal titles available only in print  2003 January;suggests users may be compromising quality for convenience when selecting journal articles. Possible implications for collection development are discussed. } } @ARTICLE{compar:tellman2001, title = {A comparison of the usefulness of {IBZ} and {FRANCIS} for historical research}, author = {J. W. Tellman}, year = 2001, journal = {Reference and User Services Quarterly}, volume = 41, number = 1, pages = {56--66}, abstract = { Two major online European journal indexes are examined to determine how useful they are in retrieving citations for materials of interest to historians. Three techniques were used: an examination of the top ten journals in history by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor , a comparison of the journal titles of possible historical interest in each database, and a comparison of results retrieved by keyword or subject in each database. IBZ appears to retrieve more articles of interest to historians; however, many relevant articles would only be retrieved by using FRANCIS. Neither database is comprehensive.}, } @ARTICLE{observ:rouseau2001, title = {Observations concerning the two- and three-year synchronous impact factor, based on the Chinese Science Citation Database.}, author = {R. Rousseau and Jin Bihui and Yang Ninghui and Liu Xiaomin}, year = 2001, journal = {Journal of Documentation}, volume = 57, number = 3, Âpages = {349--357}, abstract = { Generally speaking, the three-year synchronous impact factor is larger than the two-year one. This follows from theoretical models derived from observations based on ISI's database. We present an exception to this general rule, based on data from the Chinese Science Citation Database (CISCD). In 1998 42% of this database's source journals did not follow the expected trend. As a possible explanation we note that, contrary to intuition, in the CSCD the changes in the number of both publications and citations are largely independent. It is, however, not ruled out that the observed discrepancies are nothing but statistical fluctuations of the basic publication-citation model.}, } @ARTICLE{biblio:hideaki2001, title = {Bibliometrics by using Web of Science}, author = {T. Hideaki}, year = 2001, journal = {Joho Kanri}, volume = 44, number = 1, pages = {2--7}, abstract = { Web of Science is a convenient tool for bibliometrics of small or medium sized research institutes. Anyone can analyze statistics on production and citation of papers from small or medium sized research institutes; it guarantees transparency of the research evaluation. The author analyzed the National Institute of Bioscience and Human-Technology, the National Institute of Materials and Chemical Research, the University of Tsukuba Institute of Applied Biochemistry, and the University of Tsukuba Department of Chemistry. The analysis of impact factor vs. citation gives interesting information.}, } @ARTICLE{scient:barragan2000, title = {Scientific journals: determination of the requirements of use}, author = {M. J. R. Barragan and V. P. G. Bote and A. P. Guerrero and F. Z. Alonso}, year = 2000, journal = {Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica}, volume = 23, number = 4, pages = {417--436}, abstract = {The information requirements of the scientific community of the areas of science and technology in the University of Extremadura were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively through journal citations. For this purpose, a retrospective search was made in the Science Citation Index database, considering multiple variables such as use by department, impact factor, journal citations, availability, localization, accessibility, and coverage. A set of (simple and complex) indicators was applied to these variables, using multiple association models (in particular, Kohonen's algorithm) to determine the degree of interdepartmental overlap in the real use of information.}, } @ARTICLE{result:thelwall2001, title = {Results from a Web impact factor crawler}, author = {M. Thelwall}, year = 2001, journal = {Journal of Documentation}, volume = 57, number = 2, pages = {177--191}, abstract = {Web impact factors (WIFs), the proposed Web equivalent of impact factor s for journals, can be calculated by using search engines. It has been found that the results are problematic because of the variable coverage of search engines as well as their ability to give significantly different results over short periods of time. The fundamental problem is that although some search engines provide a functionality that is capable of being used for impact calculations, this is not their primary task and therefore they do not give guarantees as to performance in this respect. A bespoke Web crawler designed specifically for the calculation of reliable WIFs is presented. This crawler was used to calculate WIFs for a number of UK universities, and the results of these calculations are discussed. The principal findings were that with certain restrictions, WIFs can be calculated reliabâly, but do not correlate with accepted research rankings owing to the variety of material hosted on university servers. Changes to the calculations to improve the fit of the results to research rankings are proposed, but there are still inherent problems undermining the reliability of the calculation. These problems still apply if the WIF scores are taken on their own as indicators of the general impact of any area of the Internet, but with care would not apply to online journals.}, } @INPROCEEDINGS{evalua:jacso2000, title = {Evaluating the journal base of databases using the impact factor of the {ISI} {J}ournal {C}itation {R}eports}, author = {P. Jacso}, year = 2000, pages = {169--172}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st Annual National Online Meeting ({NOM}2001)}, editor = {M. E. Williams}, publisher = {Information Today}, address = {Medford, NJ}, month = {May}, abstract = {Databases in science and technology, arts and humanities differ widely in what journals of the target discipline they cover, what is the depth and retrospectivity of their coverage. The appropriateness of the journal base depends on the-occasionally subjective-preferences of the user community but there are also objective criteria that can be used to evaluate how appropriate is the scope of journals and other serial publications (annual reviews, conference proceedings) covered by a database. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has been monitoring several thousand journals to determine-among others-their importance in the discipline. The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) has historical data for science and social science periodicals that provide important measures every year about those sources. Although there is no perfect consensus about the core journals of a discipline, and the algorithm of calculating their impact factor, they are widely accepted and can be used as a benchmark for evaluating the journal base of many databases in the sciences and social sciences. The paper presents the methodology, the results and the limitations of using the ISI Journal Citation Reports for comparing the journal coverage of databases.} } @ARTICLE{inform:egghe2000, title = {New informetric aspects of the Internet: some reflections-many problems}, author = {L, Egghe}, year = 2000, journal = {Journal of Information Science}, volume = 26, number = 5, pages = {329--235}, abstract = {The paper poses more problems than it solves: it investigates the new (virtual) world of the Internet and the challenges that it offers for informetric analysis. The paper studies five different aspects. First of all, there is the increasing problem of data gathering on the Internet. The second topic is the Internet version of the informetric laws: are the same types of classical distributions valid or not? The third topic deals with scientometric aspects: can the clickable buttons (hyperlinks) in Web pages replace the role of classical references in scientific papers? It also contains a study of the Web impact factor and a discussion on ageing. The fourth topic discusses information retrieval (IR) aspects of search engines, It studies aspects of probabilistic IR as applied in these engines and poses the question of quantitative evaluation of IR (Web analogues of recall and precision). Lastly, aspects of complexity are discussed. The fractal nature of the Internet is highlighted and a modest attempt to measure it is given.}, } @ARTICLE{impact:tang2000, title = {An impact factor model of intranet adoption: an exploratory and empirical research}, author = {Shung-Ming Tang}, year = 2000, journal = {Journal of Systems and Software}, volume = 51, number = 3, pages = {157--173}, abstract = { Intranet adoption is a topic of increasing importance to enterprises as well as researchers. This paper discusses the development of a theoretical model and the testing of research hypotheses. The model captures the critical factor s affecting the success of intranet adoption. An exploratory survey and an empirical study were conducted. Empirical analysis indicates that the proposed model offers enterprises a model that can be used to plan, design, manage and evaluate intranet adoption, and in turn promote the possibility of successful adoption. Moreover, the findings of the success factors on intranet adoption are consistent with those in other studies.}, } @INPROCEEDINGS{journa:nisonger1998, title = {Journal self-citedness in Journal Citation Reports library and information science and genetics journal ratings}, author = {T. E. Nisonger}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science ({ASIS}98)}, pages = {267--278}, publisher = {Information Today}, address = {Pittsburgh, PA}, month = {October}, abstract = {This research project, still in progress, investigates the effect of journal self-citedness on Journal Citation Reports rankings of library and information science and genetics journals using data from the 1994 JCR on CD-ROM. The original JCR rankings by impact factor and total citations were contrasted. With recalculated rankings in which journal self-citations were eliminated using three methods of comparison: Pearson Product Movement correlation, overlap among top-ranking journals, and a modification of the Mankin and Bastille approach for analyzing journal movement in rank. Results for library and information science indicate the effect of self-citedness on both JCR impact factor and total citation rankings was minimal, although notable differences in rank were observed for a few journals. The preliminary conclusion is that one can use JCR rankings without adjusting tÂhe data for journal self-citedness.}, } @ARTICLE{tale:smith1999, title = {A tale of two Web spaces: comparing sites using Web impact factors}, author = {A. G. Smith}, year = 1999, journal = {Journal of Documentation}, volume = 55, number = 5, pages = {577-592}, abstract = {Ingwersen has suggested the Web impact factor (WIF) as a means for comparing relative attractiveness or influence of Web spaces. The WIF of a Web space is the number of pages linking to a Web space, divided by the number of pages in the Web space. The numbers of links and pages can be determined using Web search engines such as AltaVista, and this paper examines methodological issues associated with this determination. Three distinct WIFs can be calculated: the external WIF, reflecting the number of pages linking from outside the Web space being measured; the self-link WIF, reflecting links made from inside the Web space; and an overall WIF, combining external and self-links. External WIFs are probably the most significant. WIFs can be calculated for top level domains such as countries; however these appear to be unreliable. This paper compares WIFs for two different types of Web spaces: Australasian universities and Australasian electronic journals. For large organisations such as universities or research institutions, WIFs seem to be a useful measure of the overall influence of the Web space. However for smaller spaces such as electronic journals the WIF is less reliable as a measure.}, } @ARTICLE{inform:tahai1998, title = {Information processing using citations to investigate journal influence in accounting}, author = {A. Tahai and J. T. Rigsby}, year = 1998, journal = {Information Processing and Management}, volume = 34, number = 2, pages = {341--359}, abstract = {The first objective of this study is to investigate the durability or "staying power" of accounting research in representative scholarly journals by evaluating the extent and usage of previous literature in current literature. The value or durability of research can be represented by the pattern of citation vintages that typifies a body of literature. We use the generalized gamma distribution and its four nested models (exponential, Weibull, gamma, and log-normal) to determine a mean, median, and mode for citation age. A second and significant motivation of the study is to objectively rank the relative influence of journals on the accounting literature. Three variations of an impact factor are used to make this analysis. The first impact factor is based upon simple citation count using the proportional method, while the other two impact factor s use the results of the time analysis of the data to improve the method of ranking through the emphasis of current publications.}, } @ARTICLE{impact:harter1997, title = {{ISI}'s impact factor as misnomer: a proposed new measure to assess journal impact}, author = {S. P. Harter and T. E. Nisonger}, year = 1997, journal = {Journal of the American Society for Information Science}, volume = 48, number = 12, pages = {1146-1148}, abstract = { This communication discusses a widely used measure of journal impact that is defined by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and available for thousands of journals in the Journal Citation Reports. The name of the measure is the impact factor. A major issue, addressed in this article, concerns what impact factor really measures. We argue that ISI's impact factor is misnamed and misused, and suggest an alternative name and interpretation of the measure. We also suggest a new measure to assess the impact of a given journal using citations.}, } Â @ARTICLE{jcr:komatsu1996, title = {{JCR} for citation analysis}, author = {S. Komatsu}, year = 1996, journal = {Joho Kanri}, volume = 39, number = 3, pages = {199--207}, abstract = {Since its debut in 1975, JCR has been an essential journal evaluation tool in the field of library and information sciences. The basic listing of Journal Rankings includes the following five fundamental figures. Two total figures of total cites and total articles and three statistical indices of impact factor , immediacy index and cited half-life. JCR has been providing the multilateral journal citation analysis reports and the newly released CD-ROM version now available for more flexible and easy-to-use navigation.}, } @INPROCEEDINGS{evalua:dicesare1994, title = {The evaluation of grey literature impact using bibliometric indicators. The case of physical sciences}, author = {R. Di Cesare}, year = 1994, booktitle = {Proceedings of Eighteenth International Online Information Meeting}, editor = {D. I. Raitt and B. Jeapes}, pages = {405--413}, address = {London, UK}, month = {December}, abstract = {In this paper the results of a survey on grey literature (GL) use in the bibliographic references of literature of the physical sciences are described. The definition of GL is briefly discussed. Three categories (dark grey, medium grey and light grey) are introduced in order to account for different tones of grey in GL. Moreover, some bibliometric indicators are proposed to evaluate the impact and to examine the characteristics of GL documents cited. In particular, the potential use of the 'impact factor ' as an indicator of variability in GL use is evaluated. Data used for this analysis were obtained from a sample of journals indexed by Science Citation Index, in the category of 'Physics'.}, } @ARTICLE{mathem:egghe1988, title = {Mathematical relations between impact factors and average number of citations}, author = {L. Egghe}, year = 1998, journal = {Information Processing and Management}, volume = 24, number = 5, pages = {567--576}, abstract = {Instead of the two-year impact factor as used in the Journal Citation Reports, there is much in favor of using x-year impact factors (x[right angle bracket]0). These impact factor s are studied as a function of x and compared with the average number of citations per paper to papers that appeared in the journal x years ago. It is shown that both are equal if and only if the derivative of the impact-factor function is zero. Based on this, a simple classification of impact-factor curves versus mean citation curves is established and examples are given. These results are also applied to recent practical data that were obtained by Rousseau (1987)}, } @ARTICLE{journa:kaltenborn2003, title = {The Journal Impact Factor as a Parameter for the Evaluation of Researchers and Research}, author = {Karl-Franz Kaltenborn and Klaus Kuhn}, year = 2003, journal = {Medizinische Klinik}, volume = 98, number = 3, pages = {153--169}, } @ARTICLE{resear:grant2002, title = {Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals}, journal = {Scientometrics}, author = {Grant Lewison}, year = 2002, voume = 53, number = 2, pages = {229--240}, } @ARTICLE{advant:bordons2002, title = {Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance}, author = {Maria Bordons and M. T. Fernandez and Isabel Gomez}, year = 2002, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = 53, number = 2, pages = {195--206}, abstract = { Impact factor is a quasi-qualitative indicator, which provides a measurement of the prestige and international visibility of journals. Although the use of impact factor -based indicators for science policy purposes has increased over the last two decades, several limitations have been pointed out and should be borne in mind. The use of impact factor should be treated carefully when applied to the analysis of peripheral countries, whose national journals are hardly covered by ISI databases. Our experience in the use of impact factor based indicators for the analysis of the Spanish scientific production is shown. The usefulness of the impact factor measures in macro, meso and micro analyses is displayed. In addition, the main advantages, such as the great accessibility of impact factor and its ready-to-use nature are pointed out. Several limitations such as the need to avoid inter-field comparisons or the convenience of using a fixed journal set for international comparisons are also stressed. It is worth noting that the use of impact factor in the research evaluation process has influenced strongly the publication strategy of scientists. }, } @ARTICLE{resear:rey2002, title = {Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists}, author = {Jesus Rey-Rocha and Maria Jose Martin-Sempre and Belen Garzon}, year = 2002, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = 35, number = 1, pages = {137--156}, abstract = {We present some results of an evaluation of research performance of Spanish senior university researchers in Geology. We analyse to what extent productivity of individual researchers is influenced by the level of consolidation of the team they belong to. Methodology is based on the combination of a mail survey carried out among a defined set of researchers, and a bibliometric study of their scientific output. Differences among researchers have been investigated with regard to team size and composition, patterns of publication in domestic and foreign journals, productivity, co-authorship of papers, and impact of publications. Results indicate that not belonging to a research team represents a handicap at the time of publishing in top international journals. Researchers belonging to consolidated teams are more productive than their colleagues in non-consolidated teams, and these in turn more than individuals without team. Team size does not appear to be as important for scientific productivity as the number of researchers within the team that reached a stable job position. Analysis of the impact factor of journals has not revealed differences among researchers with regard to the visibility of their papers.}, } @ARTICLE{mandat:harnad2003, author = {Stevan Harnad and Les Carr and Tim Brody and Charles Oppenheim}, year = 2003, title = {Mandated online {RAE} {CV}s linked to university eprint archives: Enhancing {UK} research impact and assessment}, journal = {Ariadne}, number = 35, month = {March}, URL = {http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/}, } @ARTICLE{assess:nederhof2001, author = {A. J. Nederhof and M. Luwel and H. F. Moed}, title={Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in Linguistics: An alternative to citation-based journal impact factors}, journal = {Scientometrics}, year ={2001}, volume = 51, number=1, pages = {241 -- 265}, } @ARTICLE{readin:darmoni2001, author = {S. J. Darmoni and F. Roussel and J. Benichou and B. Thirion and N. Pinhas}, title = {Reading factor as a credible alternative to impact factor: a preliminary study}, journal = {Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc.}, year = {2001}, volume = {in press}, } @ARTICLE{readin:darmoni2002, author = {S. J. Darmoni and F. Roussel and J. Benichou and B. Thirion and N. Pinhas}, title = {Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries}, journal = {Journal of the Medical Library Association}, year = {2002}, volume = 90, number =3, pages = {323--327}, } @ARTICLE{sensen:opthof1997, title = {Sense and nonsense about the impact factor}, author = {Tobiasa Opthof}, abstract = {The impact factor is based on citations of papers published by a scientific journal. It has been published since 1961 by the Institute for Scientific Information. It may be regarded as an estimate of the citation rate of a journal's papers, and the higher its value, the higher the scientific esteem of the journal. Although the impact factor was originally meant for comparison of journals, it is also used for assessment of the quality of individual papers, scientists and departments. For the latter a scientific basis is lacking, as we will demonstrate in this contribution.}, journal = {Cardiovascular Research}, volume = {33}, issue = 1, pages = {1--7}, year = {1997}, } @article{impact:seglen1997, title = {Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research}, author = {Per O Seglen}, year = 1997, journal = {British Medical Journal}, pages = {314--497}, month = {February}, } @article{usemis:kostoff1998, author = {R. N. Kostoff}, year = 1998, title = {The Use and Misuse of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluations}, journal = {Scientometrics}, volume = {43}, number = {1}, pages = {27--43}, } @ARTICLE{improv:moed1995, author = {H. F. Moed and Th. Van Leeuwen}, year = 1995, title = {Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factors}, journal = {Journal of the American Society for Information Science}, volume = {46}, number = {6}, pages = {461--467}, } @ARTICLE{sensen:reedijk1998, author = {Jan Reedijk}, title = {Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data}, year = 1998, journal = {New J. Chem.}, pages = {767--770}, }