Robustness of journal rankings by network flows with different amounts of memory

As the number of scientific journals has multiplied, journal rankings have become increasingly important for scientific decisions. From submissions and subscriptions to grants and hirings, researchers, policy makers, and funding agencies make important decisions influenced by journal rankings such as the ISI journal impact factor. Typically, the rankings are derived from the citation network between a selection of journals and unavoidably depend on this selection. However, little is known about how robust rankings are to the selection of included journals. We compare the robustness of three journal rankings based on network flows induced on citation networks. They model pathways of researchers navigating the scholarly literature, stepping between journals and remembering their previous steps to different degrees: zero‐step memory as impact factor, one‐step memory as Eigenfactor, and two‐step memory, corresponding to zero‐, first‐, and second‐order Markov models of citation flow between journals. We conclude that higher‐order Markov models perform better and are more robust to the selection of journals. Whereas our analysis indicates that higher‐order models perform better, the performance gain for higher‐order Markov models comes at the cost of requiring more citation data over a longer time period.

[1]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[2]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Memory in network flows and its effects on spreading dynamics and community detection , 2013, Nature Communications.

[3]  R. Perrucci,et al.  From Little Science to Big Science , 2017 .

[4]  Gabriel Pinski,et al.  Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics , 1976, Inf. Process. Manag..

[5]  Peter Weingart,et al.  Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[6]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  On the robustness of the h-index: Brief Communication , 2007 .

[7]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Little science, big science... and beyond , 1994, Scientometrics.

[8]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[9]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Journal status , 2006, Scientometrics.

[10]  E. Garfield Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[11]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Eigenfactor™ Metrics , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[13]  C. Lanczos An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators , 1950 .

[14]  E. Garfield Journal impact factor: a brief review. , 1999, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[15]  Gourab Ghoshal,et al.  Ranking stability and super-stable nodes in complex networks. , 2011, Nature communications.

[16]  Ran El-Yaniv,et al.  On Prediction Using Variable Order Markov Models , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[17]  Carl T. Bergstrom Eigenfactor Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals , 2007 .

[18]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Ranking and clustering of nodes in networks with smart teleportation , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  On the robustness of the h-index , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Sylvain Arlot,et al.  A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection , 2009, 0907.4728.

[21]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[22]  M. Sales-Pardo,et al.  Effectiveness of Journal Ranking Schemes as a Tool for Locating Information , 2008, PloS one.

[23]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  On the Predictability of Future Impact in Science , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[24]  The Impact Factor Game , 2006, PLoS medicine.

[25]  Jennifer L. Rohn,et al.  How to improve the use of metrics , 2010, Nature.

[26]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don't let correlation coefficients fool you , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Future impact: Predicting scientific success , 2012, Nature.

[28]  A. Pickering Science as practice and culture , 1992 .

[29]  D. Hull,et al.  Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, David L. Hull. 1988. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 608 pages. ISBN: 0-226-35060-4. $39.95 , 1989 .

[30]  Les Carr,et al.  The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update , 2008 .