The focus factor: a dynamic measure of journal specialisation

Introduction. We present a new bibliometric indicator to measure journal specialisation over time, named the focus factor. This new indicator is based on bibliographic coupling and counts the percentage of re-citations given in subsequent years. Method. The applicability of the new indicator is demonstrated on a selection of general science journals and on a selection of medical journals. The reference lists of each journal are compared year by year, and the percentage of re-citations is calculated by dividing the number of recitations with the total number of citations each year. Analysis. To validate re-citations as caused by specialisation, other possible causes were measured and correlated (obsolescence, journal self-citations and number of references). Results. The results indicate that the focus factor is capable of distinguishing between general and specialised journals and thus effectively measures the intended phenomenon (i.e., journal specialisation). Only weak correlations were found between journal re-citations and obsolescence, journal selfcitations, and number of references. Conclusions. The focus factor successfully measures journal specialisation over time. Measures based on either simple citation analysis or bibliographic coupling are found

[1]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995 , 1998 .

[2]  T. Gieryn,et al.  Problem Retention and Problem Change in Science , 1978 .

[3]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Howard D. White,et al.  Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure , 1981, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  Bibliometric evolution: Is the journal of the association for information science and technology transforming into a specialty Journal? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis , 1996, Scientometrics.

[7]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level , 2005, Scientometrics.

[8]  Per Ahlgren,et al.  Bibliographic coupling, common abstract stems and clustering: A comparison of two document-document similarity approaches in the context of science mapping , 2008, Scientometrics.

[9]  Edwin B. Parker,et al.  Bibliographic Citations as Unobtrusive Measures of Scientific Communication. , 1967 .

[10]  J. Ziman.  Real Science: What It Is and What It Means , 2000 .

[11]  A. J. Meadows.  Communication in science , 1974 .

[12]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Journal Evaluation: Technical and Practical Issues, , 2002, Libr. Trends.

[13]  Elizabeth Wager.  Getting research published - an A to Z of publication strategy Getting research published - an A to Z of publication strategy Elizabeth Wager Radcliffe 152pp £21.95 1 85775 687 8 1857756878 [Formula: see text]. , 1999, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[14]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  Core journals in library and information science: measuring the level of specialization over time , 2013, Inf. Res..

[15]  A. J. Meadows,et al.  Bibliographical Statistics as a Guide To Growth Points in Science , 1971 .

[16]  Neil J. Smelser,et al.  Handbook of sociology , 1989 .

[17]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis: A critical review , 1989, JASIS.

[18]  N. Mohaghegh,et al.  WHY THE IMPACT FACTOR OF JOURNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH , 2005 .

[19]  Bo Jarneving,et al.  Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Brian Vickery,et al.  SUBJECT RELATIONS IN SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE , 1969 .

[21]  M. M. Kessler.  Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[22]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  Consensus formation in science modeled by aggregated bibliographic coupling , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[23]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing , 1963 .

[24]  D. Fanelli.  “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[25]  Citation classics and top-cited authors of psoriasis in five high-impact general medical journals, 1970-2012. , 2014, Dermatology online journal.

[26]  A. J. Meadows,et al.  Communicating research , 1997, Library and information science series.

[27]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Online determination of the journal impact factor and its international properties , 1997, Scientometrics.

[29]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties , 1974 .

[30]  D. Price.  Little Science, Big Science , 1965 .

[31]  H. Zuckerman.  Theory Choice and Problem Choice in Science , 1978 .

[32]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  Susan Bonzi,et al.  Motivations for citation: A comparison of self citation and citation to others , 1991, Scientometrics.

[35]  R. E. Burton,et al.  The “half‐life” of some scientific and technical literatures , 1960 .

[36]  Henry Small,et al.  Structural dynamics of scientific literature , 1976 .