Impact Factors and RTP: Further Readings

Caveats and Cautions

Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2008). 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). Berlin: International Mathematical Union.                

Arnold, D. N. (2008). Integrity under attack: The state of scholarly publishing. [Talk of the Society editorial] SIAM News, 42 (10).    

Ball, P. (2008). A Longer paper gathers more citations.  Nature, 455(7211), 274-275.   

Browman, H. I., & Stergiou, K. I. (Eds.). (2008). Use and misuse of bibliometrics indices in evaluating scholarly performance [Special Issue]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1).

Laloe, F., & Mosseri, R. (2009). Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: Not even right … not even wrong. Europhysics News, 40(5), 26-29. 

Opatrny, T. (2008). Playing the system to give low impact journal more clout. Nature, 455(7210), 167.

Pendlebury, D. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1-11.   

Comparisons

Gray, E., & Hodkinson, S. Z. (2008, Summer). Comparison of journal citation reports and Scopus impact factors for ecology and environmental sciences journals. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/08-summer/article1.html

Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1092-1096.  

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007).  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105-2125.    

For Librarians

Ladwig, J. P., & Sommese, A. J. (2005). Using cited half-life to adjust download statistics. College & Research Libraries, 66, 527-542.              

Wagner, A. B. (2009, Spring). Percentile-based journal impact factors: A neglected collection development metric. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/09-spring/refereed1.html

History and Background

Garfield, E. (1997). Concept of citation indexing: A unique and innovative tool for navigating the research literature. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/vladivostok.html.  

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90-93.

Garfield, E. (2007). The evolution of the Science Citation Index. International Microbiology, 10(1), 65-69.  

Moed, H. F. (2009). New Developments in the Use of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 13-18.   

Other Indexes

 Cutts, M. (2009). How does Google collect and rank page results? (www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0512_01.html)

Moed, H. F. (2009). Measuring Contextual Citation Impact of Scientific Journals.  This article describes "a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP)." (arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.2632.pdf)

Rovner, S. L. (2008).  The import of impact: New types of journal metrics grow more influential in the scientific community. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(21), 39-42.  

Schreiber, M. (2008a). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1513-1522. 

Schreiber, M. (2008b). The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index. Scientrometrics, 76, 187-200.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Testing the validity of the Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes. Research Evaluation, 17, 157-160.