Citation inequality and the Journal Impact Factor: median, mean, (does it) matter?

被引:0
作者
Tobias Kiesslich
Marlena Beyreis
Georg Zimmermann
Andreas Traweger
机构
[1] Paracelsus Medical University,Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology
[2] Paracelsus Medical University/Salzburger Landeskliniken,Department of Internal Medicine I
[3] Paracelsus Medical University,Team Biostatistics and Big Medical Data, IDA Lab Salzburg
[4] Paracelsus Medical University,University Clinic of Neurology, Christian Doppler Medical Centre
[5] Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg,Department of Mathematics
[6] Paracelsus Medical University,Institute of Tendon and Bone Regeneration, Spinal Cord Injury and Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg
[7] Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration,undefined
来源
Scientometrics | 2021年 / 126卷
关键词
Journal Impact Factor; Citation distribution; Skewed distribution; Journal quality; Article citedness;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Skewed citation distribution is a major limitation of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) representing an outlier-sensitive mean citation value per journal The present study focuses primarily on this phenomenon in the medical literature by investigating a total of n = 982 journals from two medical categories of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). In addition, the three highest-ranking journals from each JCR category were included in order to extend the analyses to non-medical journals. For the journals in these cohorts, the citation data (2018) of articles published in 2016 and 2017 classified as citable items (CI) were analysed using various descriptive approaches including e.g. the skewness, the Gini coefficient, and, the percentage of CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations. All of these measures clearly indicated an unequal, skewed distribution with highly-cited articles as outliers. The %CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations was in agreement with previously published studies with median values of 13–18% CI or 44–60% CI generating 50 or 90% of the journal’s citations, respectively. Replacing the mean citation values (corresponding to the JIF) with the median to represent the central tendency of the citation distributions resulted in markedly lower numerical values ranging from − 30 to − 50%. Up to 39% of journals showed a median citation number of zero in one medical journal category. For the two medical cohorts, median-based journal ranking was similar to mean-based ranking although the number of possible rank positions was reduced to 13. Correlation of mean citations with the measures of citation inequality indicated that the unequal distribution of citations per journal is more prominent and, thus, relevant for journals with lower citation rates. By using various indicators in parallel and the hitherto probably largest journal sample, the present study provides comprehensive up-to-date results on the prevalence, extent and consequences of citation inequality across medical and all-category journals listed in the JCR.
引用
收藏
页码:1249 / 1269
页数:20
相关论文
共 104 条
[1]  
Adler R(2009)Citation statistics: A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) Statistical Science 24 1-14
[2]  
Ewing J(2011)The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates Scientometrics 88 385-397
[3]  
Taylor P(2019)Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate? Aesthetic Surgery Journal 11 164-175
[4]  
Albarrán P(2017)Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data Journal of Informetrics 1 e007-3
[5]  
Crespo JA(2017)The Journal Impact Factor of Orthopaedic Journals Does not Predict Individual Paper Citation Rate Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Global Research and Reviews 8 1-7
[6]  
Ortuno I(2008)Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 5-852
[7]  
Ruiz-Castillo J(2008)Escape from the impact factor Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 5 e00064-00014-226
[8]  
Asaad M(2014)Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania mBio 423 479-591
[9]  
Kallarackal AP(2003)Challenging the tyranny of impact factors Nature 61 849-111
[10]  
Meaike J(2007)Income inequality measures Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56 223-413