Percentile-based journal impact factors: A neglected collection development metric

Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

Volumn 57, Issue , 2009, Pages

  Wagner, A Ben ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349814685     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10921206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adler, Robert, Ewing, John, and Taylor, Peter. 2008. Citation Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.awm-math.org/CitationStatistics-FINAL.PDF [Accessed: February 24, 2009].
2. Amin, M., and Mabe, M.. 2000. Impact factor: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (1):1-6.
3. Balaban, A. T. 1996. How should citations to articles in high- and low-impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth? Scientometrics 37 (3):495-498.
4. Bornmann, Lutz, Mutz, Rudiger, Neuhaus, Christoph, and Daniel, Hans-Dieter. 2008. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (1):93-102.
5. Campbell, Philip. 2008. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1):5-6.
6. Cleaton-Jones, Peter, and Myers, Glenda. 2002. A method for comparison of biomedical publication quality across ISI discipline categories. Journal of Dental Education 66 (6):690-696
7. Coelho, P. M. Z., et al.. 2003. The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 36(12):1605-1612.
8. Council on Scientific and Industrial Research [CSIR]. Research output analysis. Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre [INSDOC]: New Delhi, India.
9. Fassoulaki, A., et al. 2002. Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 46 (7):902-905.
10. Garfield, Eugene. 2005. The agony and the ecstasy: the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. [Online]. Available:http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/ papers/jifchicago2005.pdf [Accessed: May 1, 2009].
11. Gonzalez-Sagrado, M., et al.. 2008. Evaluation of two methods for correcting the impact factor using the investigation done at the "Del Rio Hortega" University Hospital (1999-2004) as the data source. Nutricion Hospitalaria 23(2):111-118.
12. Harnad, Stevan. 2008. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1):103-107.
13. Lawrence, Peter A. 2003. The politics of publication. Nature 422 (6929):259-261.
14. Maunder, R. G. 2007. Using publication statistics for evaluation in academic psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie 52:790-797.
15. Monastersky, Richard. 2005. The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (8):A12-A17.
16. Nagpaul, P. S. 1995. Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature - a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics 32 (1):11-36.
17. Radicchi, Filippo, Fortunato, Santo, and Castellano, Claudio. 2008. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (45):17268-17272.
18. Ramirez, A. M., Garcia, E. O., and Del Rio, J. A.. 2000. Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics 47 (1):3-9.
19. Rostami-Hodjegan, A., and Tucker, G. T.. 2001. Journal impact factors: a "bioequivalence" issue? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 51 (2):111-117.
20. Rousseau, R. 2005. Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators. cientometrics 63 (3):431-441.
21. Schwartz, S., and Hellin, J. L. 1996. Measuring the impact of scientific publications. The case of the biomedical sciences. Scientometrics 35 (1):119-132
22. Sen, B. K. 1992. Documentation Note: Normalized Impact Factor. Journal of Documentation 48 (3):318-325.
23. Simons, K. 2008. The misused impact factor. Science 322 (5899):165-165.
24. Solari, A., and Magri, M. H. 2000. A new approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a system for evaluating scientific journals. Scientometrics 47 (3):605-625.
25. Sombatsompop, N., and T. Markpin. 2005. Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56 (7):676-683.
26. Sombatsompop, N., Markpin, T., and Premkamolnetr, N. 2004. A modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997-2001. Scientometrics 60 (2):217-235.
27. Tang, J. L., Wong, T. W., and Liu, J. L. Y. 1999. Adjusted impact factors for comparisons between disciplines. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53 (11):739-740.
28. Thomson Scientific. 2008. Preserving the Integrity of the Journal Impact Factor Guidelines from the Scientific business of Thomson Reuters [Blog Entry]. [Online]. Available: http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/t5/blogs/ blogarticlepage/blogid/citation/article-id/14#M14 [Accessed: May 1, 2009].
29. Todd, Peter A., and Ladle, Richard J. 2008. Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (1):13-16.
30. Ugolini, D., Bogliolo, A., Parodi, S., Casilli, C., and Santi, L. 1997. Assessing research productivity in an oncology research institute: The role of the documentation center. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 85 (1):33-38.
31. Ugolini, D., Parodi, S., and Santi, L. 1997. Analysis of publication quality in a cancer research institute. Scientometrics 38 (2):265-274.
32. Vinkler, P. 1991. Possible Causes of Differences in Information Impact of Journals from Different Subfields. Scientometrics 20 (1):145-161.
33. Wallin, J. A. 2005. Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 97 (5):261-275.
34. Ward, R. K., Cbristensen, J. O., and Spackman, E. 2006. A systematic approach for evaluating and upgrading academic science journal collections. Serials Review 32 (1):4-16