IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v75y2008i2d10.1007_s11192-007-1860-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Article-count impact factor of materials science journals in SCI database

Author

Listed:
  • T. Markpin

    (Environment and Materials King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • B. Boonradsamee

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT)
    Prince of Songkla University)

  • K. Ruksinsut

    (Prince of Songkla University)

  • W. Yochai

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • N. Premkamolnetr

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • P. Ratchatahirun

    (Environment and Materials King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • N. Sombatsompop

    (Environment and Materials King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

Abstract

This article proposed a new index, so-called “Article-Count Impact Factor” (ACIF) for evaluating journal quality in light of citation behaviour in comparison with the ISI journal impact factors. The ACIF index was the ratio of the number of articles that were cited in the current year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. In this work, we used 171 journal titles in materials categories published in the years of 2001–2004 in international journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI) database as data source. It was found that ACIF index could be used as an alternative tool in assessing the journal quality, particularly in the case where the assessed journals had the same (equal or similar) JIF values. The experimental results suggested that the higher the ACIF value, the more the number of articles being cited. The changes in ACIF values were more dependent on the JIF values rather than the total number of articles. Polymer Science had the greatest ACIF values, suggesting that the articles in Polymer Science had greater “citation per article” than those in Metallurgical Engineering and Ceramics. It was also suggested that in order to increase a JIF value of 1.000, Ceramics category required more articles to be cited as compared to Metallurgical Engineering and Polymer Science categories.

Suggested Citation

  • T. Markpin & B. Boonradsamee & K. Ruksinsut & W. Yochai & N. Premkamolnetr & P. Ratchatahirun & N. Sombatsompop, 2008. "Article-count impact factor of materials science journals in SCI database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 251-261, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:75:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1860-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1860-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-1860-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-007-1860-3?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. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    2. David Colquhoun, 2003. "Challenging the tyranny of impact factors," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6939), pages 479-479, May.
    3. Alexander I. Pudovkin & Eugene Garfield, 2002. "Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(13), pages 1113-1119, November.
    4. Maria Bordons & M. T. Fernández & Isabel Gómez, 2002. "Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 195-206, February.
    5. Narongrit Sombatsompop & Teerasak Markpin, 2005. "Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 676-683, May.
    6. David Adam, 2002. "The counting house," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6873), pages 726-729, February.
    7. Péter Vinkler, 2002. "Subfield problems in applying the Garfield (Impact) Factors in practice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 267-279, February.
    8. Thed N. van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Development and application of journal impact measures in the Dutch science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 249-266, February.
    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. Gaby Haddow & Paul Genoni, 2010. "Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 471-487, November.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Yu, Liping & Shen, Xiaoming & Pan, Yuntao & Wu, Yishan, 2009. "Scholarly journal evaluation based on panel data analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 312-320.

    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. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    2. Narongrit Sombatsompop & T. Markpin & N. Premkamolnetr, 2004. "A modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997–2001," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 217-235, June.
    3. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "The iceberg hypothesis revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 443-461, November.
    4. Tingcan Ma & Gui-Fang Wang & Ke Dong & Mukun Cao, 2012. "The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 649-658, February.
    5. Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Felipe Zapico-Alonso & María Eugenia Espinosa-Calvo & Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2007. "Import-export of knowledge between scientific subject categories: The iceberg hypothesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 423-441, June.
    6. José María Gómez-Sancho & María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 435-458, November.
    7. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    8. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.
    9. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 821-833, September.
    10. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    11. Jing Li & Qiushuang Long & Xiaoli Lu & Dengsheng Wu, 2023. "Citation beneficiaries of discipline-specific mega-journals: who and how much," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. P. H. Alfaraz & Amalia Mirta Calviño, 2004. "Bibliometric study on food science and technology: Scientific production in Iberian-American countries (1991-2000)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(1), pages 89-102, September.
    13. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    14. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2014. "The effect of citations on the significance of decimal places in the computation of journal impact factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 289-298, May.
    15. Jiancheng Guan & Yan Yan & Jingjing Zhang, 2015. "How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 333-355, January.
    16. Li, Feng & Miao, Yajun & Yang, Chenchen, 2015. "How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 438-450.
    17. Antonia Ferrer-Sapena & Susana Díaz-Novillo & Enrique A. Sánchez-Pérez, 2017. "Measuring Time-Dynamics and Time-Stability of Journal Rankings in Mathematics and Physics by Means of Fractional p -Variations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-14, September.
    18. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    19. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2008. "Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 369-372.
    20. Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida & Rafael Galvão de Almeida & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2017. "Academic rankings and pluralism : the case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 569, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

    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:75:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1860-3. 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.