Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor

The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analyzed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied.

[1]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison , 2012, Scientometrics.

[2]  Patrick Dattalo,et al.  Statistical Power Analysis , 2008 .

[3]  Pablo Dorta-González,et al.  Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[4]  Félix de Moya Anegón,et al.  The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals' scientific prestige , 2009, ArXiv.

[5]  Pablo Dorta-González,et al.  Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor , 2012, Scientometrics.

[6]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[7]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[8]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Differences in impact factor across fields and over time , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  of Science , 2022 .

[10]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[11]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers , 2012, Scientometrics.

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

[13]  Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote,et al.  A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  The advantage of the use of samples in evaluative bibliometric studies , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Stephen J. Bensman.  Garfield and the impact factor , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[17]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Differences in impact factor across fields and over time , 2009 .

[18]  Leo Egghe.  Theoretical justification of the central area indices and the central interval indices , 2012, Scientometrics.

[19]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Pablo Dorta-gonzález,et al.  Indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h , 2010 .

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

[22]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? , 1979, Scientometrics.

[23]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way , 2012, Scientometrics.

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff.  How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? , 2009 .

[26]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[27]  Alexander I. Pudovkin,et al.  Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Pablo Dorta-González,et al.  Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the h-index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[29]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  What does the Web of Science five-year synchronous impact factor have to offer? , 2009 .

[32]  Stephen J. Bensman.  Garfield and the impact factor , 2007 .

[33]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[34]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects , 2009 .

[35]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis , 1992 .

[36]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[37]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[38]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[39]  Leo Egghe,et al.  A general framework for relative impact indicators , 2003 .