|
Re: Query about journal (not author) self-citation rates
|
Lloyd A.Davidson
|
Mar 25, 2003 17:58 PST
|
--=====================_18419505==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
For what it's worth, ISI's Journal Citation Reports has a listing for each
journal (e.g. Cell) of:
Number of times articles published in 2001 (in journals below) cited
articles published in CELL (in years below)
Impact Citing Journal All
Yrs 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
Rest
All
Journals 146225 1837 8747 11443 13119 16026 14265 13174 12105
11653 7943 35913
7.258 J BIOL
CHEM 11442 98 678 913 1155 1420 1131 1166 844
781 676 2580
9.836 MOL CELL
BIOL 3764 18 213 348 391 523 365 372 239
251 228 816
10.896 PNAS 3427 65 294 341 345 468
320 277 222 211 157 727
6.737 ONCOGENE 2874 17 181 180 253 385
300 272 217 239 192 638
and
Number of times articles published in journals below (in years below) were
cited in CELL in 2001
Impact Cited Journal All
Yrs 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 Rest
All
Journals 15779 1206 2793 2344 1865 1407 1196 905 749 584
428 2302
29.219 CELL 1753 168 261 230 194 161 132 102
104 85 64 252
27.955 NATURE 1212 94 239 148 134 103 105 72
68 34 30 185
Some of the information you are seeking might be extractable from these
tables. At least they provide a place to start.
At 05:51 PM 3/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:
| | [Forwarding from Stevan Harnad. --Peter.]
Author self-citation rates are easily calculated and corrected for.
One can always subtract self-citations from an author's citation
count. But what about journal self-citations (by which I mean
articles in a journal citing other articles in that same journal)?
In both cases -- author self-citation and journal self-citation -- the
self-citations may be legitimate and necessary, or they may be
excessive and inflated. In the case of journals, it is no doubt
possible that the majority of the important and relevant work happens
to be done in the pages of that journal.
But because journals are often evaluated on the basis of their impact
factors (by libraries, choosing which journals to purchase, by authors,
choosing which journals to submit to, and by grant-funders and research
assessors, choosing which research and researchers to hire, fund, and
promote) there is every temptation to get those journal impact factors
as high as possible. The legitimate way is to attract the best research,
by maintaining the best peer-review standards, but a short-cut is to
encourage authors to cite the journal more often in their articles
(as a condition or inducement for acceptance in that journal).
Which leads me to my question: Has anyone done a systematic analysis
to test for this? One could calculate average rates for (S) journals
citing themselves (articles in the same journal, not self-citations
by its authors), (T) journals citing *to* other journals, (B) journals
cited *by* other journals (this could be done across as well as within
fields or even subfields). This could perhaps also be fine-tuned by the
citation-rates of the authors in the journals (their personal t and b
rates, across all their papers). This would give a preliminary picture
of which journals have inflated S-rates, relative to others, perhaps
weighted by the other factors, including google-like "authorities",
namely, high-impact, uninflated journals that can be used as bench-marks.
Even the possibility that a journal's higher S-rate is because it is the
only one in its subfield (or the only one at its level in the subfield)
could be tested using triangulation with the above variables.
Does anyone know of such studies? (Or of evidence of encouraging
self-citation in any way?)
It goes without saying that once the journal literature is open-access,
potential journal-based biases like this will be far less consequential,
because there will be many direct measures of a paper's or author's
research impact, among which the citation impact factor of the journal
in which the paper appeared will be a relatively minor one.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm
Stevan Harnad
|
Lloyd Davidson, Ph.D.
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL 60208
847-491-2906
--=====================_18419505==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
For what it's worth, ISI's Journal Citation Reports has a listing for
each journal (e.g. Cell) of:<br><br>
Number of times articles published in 2001 (in journals below) cited
articles published in CELL (in years below)<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=1>Impact Citing
Journal All Yrs 2001 2000 1999
1998 1997
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
Rest <br>
All
Journals 146225 1837 8747
11443 13119 16026 14265
13174 12105 11653 7943 35913 <br>
7.258 J BIOL CHEM
11442 98
678 913 1155
1420 1131 1166 844
781 676 2580 <br>
9.836 MOL CELL BIOL
3764 18
213 348
391 523
365 372 239
251 228 816 <br>
10.896
PNAS 3427
65 294 341
345 468
320 277 222
211 157 727 <br>
6.737
ONCOGENE 2874
17 181 180
253 385
300 272 217
239 192 638<br><br>
</font>and<br><br>
Number of times articles published in journals below (in years below)
were cited in CELL in 2001<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=1>Impact Cited Journal All
Yrs 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
Rest <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>All
Journals 15779 1206 2793 2344
1865 1407 1196 905 749
584 428 2302 <br>
29.219
CELL 1753
168 261 230 194
161 132 102 104
85 64 252 <br>
27.955 NATURE
1212 94 239 148
134 103 105
72 68 34
30 185</font> <br><br>
Some of the information you are seeking might be extractable from these
tables. At least they provide a place to start.<br><br>
<br>
At 05:51 PM 3/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>[Forwarding from Stevan
Harnad. --Peter.]<br><br>
<br>
Author self-citation rates are easily calculated and corrected for.<br>
One can always subtract self-citations from an author's citation<br>
count. But what about journal self-citations (by which I mean<br>
articles in a journal citing other articles in that same journal)?<br>
<br>
In both cases -- author self-citation and journal self-citation --
the<br>
self-citations may be legitimate and necessary, or they may be<br>
excessive and inflated. In the case of journals, it is no doubt<br>
possible that the majority of the important and relevant work
happens<br>
to be done in the pages of that journal.<br><br>
But because journals are often evaluated on the basis of their
impact<br>
factors (by libraries, choosing which journals to purchase, by
authors,<br>
choosing which journals to submit to, and by grant-funders and
research<br>
assessors, choosing which research and researchers to hire, fund,
and<br>
promote) there is every temptation to get those journal impact
factors<br>
as high as possible. The legitimate way is to attract the best
research,<br>
by maintaining the best peer-review standards, but a short-cut is
to<br>
encourage authors to cite the journal more often in their articles<br>
(as a condition or inducement for acceptance in that journal).<br><br>
Which leads me to my question: Has anyone done a systematic
analysis<br>
to test for this? One could calculate average rates for (S)
journals<br>
citing themselves (articles in the same journal, not self-citations<br>
by its authors), (T) journals citing *to* other journals, (B)
journals<br>
cited *by* other journals (this could be done across as well as
within<br>
fields or even subfields). This could perhaps also be fine-tuned by
the<br>
citation-rates of the authors in the journals (their personal t and
b<br>
rates, across all their papers). This would give a preliminary
picture<br>
of which journals have inflated S-rates, relative to others,
perhaps<br>
weighted by the other factors, including google-like
"authorities",<br>
namely, high-impact, uninflated journals that can be used as
bench-marks.<br>
Even the possibility that a journal's higher S-rate is because it is
the<br>
only one in its subfield (or the only one at its level in the
subfield)<br>
could be tested using triangulation with the above variables.<br><br>
Does anyone know of such studies? (Or of evidence of encouraging<br>
self-citation in any way?)<br><br>
It goes without saying that once the journal literature is
open-access,<br>
potential journal-based biases like this will be far less
consequential,<br>
because there will be many direct measures of a paper's or author's<br>
research impact, among which the citation impact factor of the
journal<br>
in which the paper appeared will be a relatively minor one.<br>
<a href="http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm</a><br><br>
Stevan Harnad<br><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Lloyd Davidson, Ph.D.<br>
Northwestern University Library<br>
Evanston, IL 60208<br><br>
847-491-2906<br><br>
</html>
--=====================_18419505==_.ALT--
|
|
 |
|
