Percentile-Based Journal Impact Factors: A Neglected Collection Development Metric.
Issues in Science and Technology LibrarianshipPublished 1 May 2009Open access
A. Ben Wagner
Citations14
SJR quartileQ2
SJR score0.26
SNIP0.32
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
It is argued that PIFs should become a standard component of journal collection evaluation projects because they allow valid cross-disciplinary comparisons of impact factors, something not possible using JIFs.
Abstract
Various normalization techniques to transform journal impact factors (JIFs) into a standard scale or range of values have been reported a number of times in the literature, but have seldom been part of collection development librarians' tool kits. In this paper, JIFs as reported in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database are converted to percentiles (0%-100%) using Microsoft Excel's PERCENTRANK function. This permits a more intuitive evaluation of journal ranking within JCR subject categories and broader disciplines. The top journal by impact factor in any category is set to 100% while the lowest impact factor journal is set to 0% with all other journals on the list scaled according to their rank. Percentile-based impact factors (PIFs) also allow valid cross-disciplinary comparisons of impact factors, something not possible using JIFs. Finally, since a given journal title is often assigned to multiple subject categories, the relative impact of the same journal title can be compared and evaluated across each of those categories. This paper argues that PIFs should become a standard component of journal collection evaluation projects. The history, use, and misuse of impact factors are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Keywords
Decision SciencesArts and Humanities
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & ToxicologyBibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities
874 Citations2005Johan Albert Wallin
Bibliometric studies have many pitfalls; technical skill, critical sense and a precise knowledge about the examined scientific domain are required to carry out and interpret bibliometric investigations correctly.
Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesUniversality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact
834 Citations2008Filippo Radicchi, Santo Fortunato +1 more
It is shown that the probability that an article is cited c times has large variations between different disciplines, but all distributions are rescaled on a universal curve when the relative indicator cf = c/c0 is considered, where c0 is the average number of citations per article for the discipline.
Ethics in Science and Environmental PoliticsCitation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results
361 Citations2007Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz +2 more
NatureThe politics of publication
351 Citations2003Peter A. Lawrence
Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research in the face of threats to research integrity.
ScienceThe Misused Impact Factor
180 Citations2008Kai Simons
This citation-based metric is meant to rank scientific journals, but there have been numerous criticisms over the years of its use as a measure of the quality of individual research papers.
Ethics in Science and Environmental PoliticsEscape from the impact factor
149 Citations2008Peter Campbell
Ethics in Science and Environmental PoliticsValidating research performance metrics against peer rankings
100 Citations2008Stevan Harnad
A unique opportunity to do this is offered by the 2008 UK Research Assessment Exercise, in which a full spectrum of metrics can be jointly tested, field by field, against peer rankings.
ScientometricsA modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997–2001
88 Citations2004Narongrit Sombatsompop, Teerasak Markpin +1 more
A new modified method for calculating the impact factor of journals based on the current ISI practice in generating journal impact factor values is introduced, the so-called Cited Half-Life Impact Factor (CHAL) method, which is based on a ratio of the number of current year citations of articles from the previous X years to that of articles published in the previous years.
Ethics in Science and Environmental PoliticsHidden dangers of a citation culture
79 Citations2008PA Todd, Richard J. Ladle
The influence of the journal impact factor and the effect of a 'citation culture' on science and scientists have been discussed extensively, but there are 2 substantial areas of error that can dis- tort a citation count or any metric based on a citationcount.
Acta Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaImpact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination
78 Citations2002Argyro Fassoulaki, Konstantinos Papilas +2 more
The aim of the study was to evaluate two of its important constraints, journal self‐citation and scientific field, and to investigate the potential for improvement.
ScientometricsRenormalized Impact Factor
72 Citations2000Ana María Ramírez, E. O. García +1 more
In this paper, a renormalized impact factor, Fr, inspired in the definition of dimensionless physical parameters, is proposed, which allows a direct comparison among journals classified into different categories and, furthermore, the time evolution analysis of the journal's role in its field.
ScientometricsMedian and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators
63 Citations2005Ronald Rousseau
The idea introduced by Sombatsompop, Markpin and Premkamolnetr has a great theoretical value as they are the first ones to consider impact factors not using years as a basic ingredient, but an element of the actual form of the citation curve.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologyMaking an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields
60 Citations2005Narongrit Sombatsompop, Teerasak Markpin
A new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) is proposed for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields based on a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in differentsubject fields.
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological ResearchThe use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application
46 Citations2003Paulo Marcos Zech Coelho, Carlos Antunes +4 more
By means of the Kruskal-Wallis test, it was shown that it is not possible to compare distinct disciplines using the impact factor without adjustments, and the adjusted values were homogeneous, thus permitting comparison among distinct disciplines.
ScientometricsContribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature: A bibliometric assessment
42 Citations1995P. S. Nagpaul
The structure of science is revealed as determined by the cumulative effect of resource allocation decisions taken in the past for different fields and institutions i.e. the effect of national science policy.
ScientometricsAnalysis of publication quality in a Cancer Research Institute
38 Citations1997Donatella Ugolini, Silvio Parodi +1 more
An experimental method for the evaluation of scientific papers in the field of oncology and related disciplines developed at the National Institute for Cancer Research (IST), Genoa, Italy, based on the partitioning of categories of the SCI-JCR into deciles is presented.
ScientometricsPossible causes of differences in information impact of journals from different subfields
36 Citations1991P. Vinkler
A new indicator —Standard Journal Impact — is suggested, which may be used as a standardized (i.e. comparable) impact indicator for journals in different subfields, mainly for journals of the macromolecular chemistry subfield.
ScientometricsA New Approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a System for Evaluating Scientific Journals
34 Citations2000Aline SOLARI, Marie-Hélène Magri
A guide for evaluating journals constructed each year using indicators published in the JCR by the ISI is presented, which immediately reveals the scientific subject category where the journal is best positioned.
British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyJournal impact factors: a ‘bioequivalence’ issue?
22 Citations2001Amin Rostami‐Hodjegan, GT Tucker
Investigation of citation profiles for three clinical pharmacology journals found IMF does not represent the impact of an individual paper and if the comparison of journals is treated as a bioequivalence issue, the citation data should be log transformed prior to calculating IMF such that they represent the likelihood of citation for the median article.
ScientometricsMeasuring the impact of scientific publications. The case of the biomedical sciences
20 Citations1996S. Schwartz, Joan López-Hellín
This paper proposes a new estimator, the RPU, based on a normalization of the impact factor that minimizes bias and permits comparison among subfields, and increases homogeneous subfields from 15.6% to 93.7%.
ScientometricsHow should citations to articles in high- and low-impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth?
19 Citations1996Alexandrù T. Balaban
After a brief discussion on the normalization factors allowing the quantitative comparison between various disciplines, a formula is proposed for taking into account the value of citations to papers published in journals with different impact factors.
Journal of Dental EducationA Method for Comparison of Biomedical Publication Quality Across ISI Discipline Categories
15 Citations2002Peter Cleaton‐Jones, Glenda Myers
The use of article scores per discipline category enables a reasonable, relative comparison of the quality of biomedical publications of individuals across disciplines for the purpose of promotion or awarding of research grants.
The Canadian Journal of PsychiatryUsing Publication Statistics for Evaluation in Academic Psychiatry
14 Citations2007Robert Maunder
If publication statistics vary among psychiatric faculty members of different academic rank and if there are biases among disciplines is determined, citation ratio minimizes the effect of bias among disciplines.
Serials ReviewA Systematic Approach for Evaluating and Upgrading Academic Science Journal Collections
10 Citations2006Randall K. Ward, John O. Christensen +1 more
The methodology involved the creation of separate tables for each subject including subscription cost, annual usage, calculated cost per use, and ISI impact factors which provided a clear picture that was invaluable in the collaboration with faculty that subsequently occurred in canceling less-used journals and freeing up money for newer (mostly online) subscriptions.
PubMedAssessing research productivity in an oncology research institute: the role of the documentation center.
8 Citations1997Donatella Ugolini, Anna Bogliolo +3 more
An evaluation method based on the partitioning of categories of the Science Citation Index and Journal Citation Reports into deciles, which normalizes journal impact factors, is presented to assess the quality of research productivity.
PubMed[Evaluation of two methods for correcting the impact factor using the investigation done at the "Del Río Hortega" University Hospital (1999-2004) as the data source].
3 Citations2008M. González Sagrado, D A de Luis Román +4 more
The results suggests that IF adjusted by the maximum value of each discipline is the best method to correct the ISI-IF values, because journals with the high IF are always rewarded, while IFadjusted by the median infra-estimated most of them.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community HealthAdjusted impact factors for comparisons between disciplines.
2 Citations1999Jiang Tang, Theodoric Wong +1 more
A suggestion for the third edition: to include a chapter on “How to answer the reviewers’ comments”.