¿Se ajustan las ventanas fijas de citación a las velocidades de maduración del impacto de las revistas científicas?

  1. María Isabel Dorta González
  2. Pablo Dorta González
Journal:
Investigación bibliotecológica

ISSN: 2448-8321,  0187-358X

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 30

Issue: 68

Pages: 73-89

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.IBBAI.2016.02.004 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Investigación bibliotecológica

Abstract

Scientific fields employ distinct citation practices. As such, bibliometric indicators based on citations need to be standardized to allow comparisons between fields. This paper examines more than six hundred journals in eight JCR categories. Results indicate that impact maturation rates vary considerably from one category to another. The time elapsed until the citation distribution reaches a maximum oscillates between two and five years; hence the opening and closing of the citation window is crucial to the impact factor. Some journals are penalized by the two-year impact factor and benefited by the five-year impact factor, and the reverse situation was also found. Nonetheless, there are impact factors of variable citation windows that produce closer measures of central tendency.

Bibliographic References

  • Althouse, B.M., West, J.D., Bergstrom, C.T., Bergstrom, T.. (2009). “Differences in impact factor across fields and over time”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60. 27-34
  • Bensman, S.J.. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 41. 93-155
  • Bergstrom, C.. (2007). “Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals”. College and Research Libraries News. 68. 314
  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.D.. (2008). “What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior”. Journal of Documentation. 64. 45-80
  • Dorta-González, M.I., Dorta-González, P.. (2014). “Factor de impacto agregado según campos científicos”. Investigación Bibliotecológica. 28. 15-28
  • Dorta González, P., Dorta-González, M.I.. (2010). “Indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h”. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 33. 225
  • Dorta González, P., Dorta-González, M.I.. (2011). “Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index”. Scientometrics. 88. 729
  • Dorta González, P., Dorta-González, M.I.. (2013). “Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor”. Scientometrics. 95. 645
  • Dorta González, P., Dorta-González, M.I.. (2013). “Hábitos de publicación y citación según campos científicos: Principales diferencias a partir de las revistas JCR”. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 36.
  • Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M.I., Santos-Peñate, D.R., Suárez-Vega, R.. (2014). “Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor”. Journal of Informetrics. 8. 406
  • Egghe, L.. (2013). “Theoretical justification of the central area indices and the central interval indices”. Scientometrics. 95. 25-34
  • Egghe, L., Rousseau, R.. (2002). “A general framework for relative impact indicators”. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science. 27. 29-48
  • Garfield, E.. (1972). “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation”. Science. 178. 471
  • Garfield, E.. (1979). “Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?”. Scientometrics. 1. 359
  • González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegón, F.. (2009). “The sjr indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige”. Journal of Informetrics. 4. 379
  • Leydesdorff, L.. (2009). “How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60. 1327
  • Leydesdorff, L.. (2012). “Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers”. Scientometrics. 92. 355
  • Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the Impact Factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62. 217
  • Moed, H.F.. (2010). “Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals”. Journal of Informetrics. 4. 265
  • Moed, H.F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Plume, A., Amin, M.. (2012). “Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way”. Scientometrics. 92. 367
  • Rousseau, R.. (2009). “What does the Web of Science five-year synchronous impact factor have to offer?”. Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science. 2. 1-7
  • Van Raan, A.F.J., Van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., Van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.. (2010). “Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff”. Journal of Informetrics. 4. 431
  • Wagner, C., Roessner, J.D., Bobb, K., Klein, J., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., Börner, K.. (2011). “Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (idr): A review of the literature”. Journal of Informetrics. 5. 14-26
  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J.. (2013). “Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison”. Scientometrics. 96. 699-716
  • Zitt, M., Small, H.. (2008). “Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59. 1856
  • Frandsen, T.F., Rousseau, R.. (2005). “Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56. 58-62
Data source: Dialnet