Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The journal Impact Factor (IF) is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In this work, a decomposing of the field aggregate impact factor into five normally distributed variables is presented. Considering these factors, a principal component analysis is employed to find the sources of the variance in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) subject categories of science and social science. Although publication and citation behaviour differs largely across disciplines, principal components explain more than 78 % of the total variance and the average number of references per paper is not the primary factor explaining the variance in impact factors across categories. The categories normalized impact factor based on the JCR subject category list is proposed and compared with the IF. This normalization is achieved by considering all the indexing categories of each journal. An empirical application, with one hundred journals in two or more subject categories of economics and business, shows that the gap between rankings is reduced around 32 % in the journals analyzed. This gap is obtained as the maximum distance among the ranking percentiles from all categories where each journal is included.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

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(1), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 93–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., & Konstan, J. A. (2010). Conference paper selectivity and impact. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2010). Indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 33(2), 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2011a). Aplicación empírica de un indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Cultura y Educación, 23(2), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2011b). Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index. Scientometrics, 88(3), 729–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal–journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010a). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 644–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010b). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2365–2369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(9), 1823–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, A. M., García, E. O., & Del Río, J. A. (2000). Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 47(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(4), 1118–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE, 5(1), e8694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sombatsompop, N., & Markpin, T. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 431–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2010). The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1476–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Yan, E., & Van Eck, N. J. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89(1), 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(11), 1856–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Spain under the research project ECO2008-05589.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos en Economía y Gestión, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain

    P. Dorta-González

  2. Departamento de Estadística, Investigación Operativa y Computación, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

    M. I. Dorta-González

Authors
  1. P. Dorta-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. I. Dorta-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Dorta-González.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Tables (DOC 441 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M.I. Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics 95, 645–672 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0929-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0929-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation