IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v51y2001i2d10.1023_a1012705818635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The editorial policies of scientific journals: Testing an impact factor model

Author

Listed:
  • Mario de Marchi

    (CNR-ISRDS)

  • Maurizio Rocchi

    (CNR-ISRDS)

Abstract

There is an evident need for the most scrupulous assessment possibleof the fruits of research (in the context considered here; namely, publications)with a qualitative, hence in-depth analysis of the single products of . Butthis would require time and competences which not all policy makers have attheir disposal. Hopefully, quantitative procedures, apparently objective andeasy to apply, would be able to surmount these difficulties. The diffusionof the quantitative evaluation of research is, that is, the policy makers'adaptive response to the need to increase controls of the efficiency of publicspending in since public investment clearly could not be determined at theoutset on the basis of the market's spontaneous, decentralised balancingmechanisms. An essential step towards the prevention of the distortions mostlikely to result from quantitative evaluation is the adoption of quantitativeprocedures of evaluation of the editorial policies of scientific journals– or, rather, of journals which claim to be scientific. Such proceduresmust be designed to highlight any distortions caused by the non-optimal editorialpolicies of journals. With quantitative evaluation, in fact, journals playa crucial role in the formation of public science policies. They thus haveto be subjected to specific monitoring to make sure that their conduct fitsin with the prerequisites necessary for them to perform their semi-officialactivity as certifiers of the quality of the products of research. The phenomenaof the production, divulgation and fruition of scientific discovery are, ofcourse, so complex that it is necessary to weigh them not with a single indicator,however helpful it may be, but with a constellation of indicators. We receivedconfirmation of the reliability of the impact factor as an instrument to monitorthe quality of research and as a means of evaluating the research itself.This is a reassuring result for the current formulation of public policiesand confirms the substantial honesty of the competition mechanisms of thescientific enterprise.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario de Marchi & Maurizio Rocchi, 2001. "The editorial policies of scientific journals: Testing an impact factor model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(2), pages 395-404, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:51:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1012705818635
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1012705818635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1012705818635
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1012705818635?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moed, H. F. & Burger, W. J. M. & Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J., 1985. "The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
    2. Ana M. Ramírez & Esther O. García & J. Antonio Del Río, 2000. "Renormalized Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 3-9, January.
    3. Helmut A. Abt, 2000. "Do Important Papers Produce High Citation Counts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 48(1), pages 65-70, June.
    4. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    5. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The inevitable limits of EU R&D funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 559-568, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mansilla, R. & Köppen, E. & Cocho, G. & Miramontes, P., 2007. "On the behavior of journal impact factor rank-order distribution," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 155-160.
    2. Mario Marchi & Edoardo Lorenzetti, 2016. "Measuring the impact of scholarly journals in the humanities field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 253-261, January.
    3. Emanuela Reale & Anna Barbara & Antonio Costantini, 2006. "Peer review for the evaluation of the academic research: the Italian experience," CERIS Working Paper 200615, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    4. David I. Stern, 2013. "Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 173-189, March.
    5. Si Shen & Ronald Rousseau & Dongbo Wang & Danhao Zhu & Huoyu Liu & Ruilun Liu, 2015. "Editorial delay and its relation to subsequent citations: the journals Nature, Science and Cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1867-1873, December.
    6. M. Marchi & E. Lorenzetti, 2016. "Measuring the impact of journals, a reprise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 995-997, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nils Omland, 2011. "Valuing Patents through Indicators," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. M. Marchi & M. Rocchi, 1999. "Summing up approaches to the study of science and technology indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(1), pages 39-49, September.
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    4. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, 2023. "Bibliometric denialism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5357-5359, September.
    5. Jos� Lobo & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick & Deborah Strumsky, 2014. "The Inventive, the Educated and the Creative: How Do They Affect Metropolitan Productivity?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 155-177, February.
    6. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    7. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 173-181, July.
    8. Motchenkova, E.I. & Rus, O., 2011. "Research joint ventures and price collusion: Joint analysis of the impact of R&D subsidies and antitrust fines," Serie Research Memoranda 0025, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    9. Lee, Changyong & Cho, Yangrae & Seol, Hyeonju & Park, Yongtae, 2012. "A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 16-29.
    10. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    11. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    12. Thor, Andreas & Marx, Werner & Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): A program for reference publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 503-515.
    13. Viral V. Acharya & Krishnamurthy V. Subramanian, 2009. "Bankruptcy Codes and Innovation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(12), pages 4949-4988, December.
    14. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    15. Blomkvist, Katarina & Kappen, Philip & Zander, Ivo, 2014. "Superstar inventors—Towards a people-centric perspective on the geography of technological renewal in the multinational corporation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 669-682.
    16. Nobuko Miyairi & Han-Wen Chang, 2012. "Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited papers from Taiwan, 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 197-205, July.
    17. Harpreet Singh & David Kryscynski & Xinxin Li & Ram Gopal, 2016. "Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect innovative performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1649-1666, August.
    18. Anthony F. J. Raan & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Do younger Sleeping Beauties prefer a technological prince?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 701-717, February.
    19. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    20. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:51:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1012705818635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.