Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12386416 = product of:
  0.24772832 = sum of:
    0.24772832 = sum of:
      0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19926621 = score(doc=4187,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0484621 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:53:00

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles

0.050322324 = product of:
  0.10064465 = sum of:
    0.10064465 = product of:
      0.2012893 = sum of:
        0.2012893 = weight(_text_:journals in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2012893 = score(doc=3340,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.78454125 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the distribution of articles and citations in journals between 1998 and 2007 according to an empirical function with two exponents. These variables showed good fit to a beta function with two exponents.

0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=75,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 4124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=4124,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 4124, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The variables investment, benefit, and yield were defined to study the influence of journal self-citations on the impact factor. Investment represents the share of journal self-citations that contribute to the impact factor. Benefit is defined as the ratio of journal impact factor including self-citations to journal impact factor without self-citations. Yield is the relationship between benefit and investment. I selected all journals included in 2008 in the Science Citation Index version of Journal Citation Reports. After deleting 482 records for reasons to be explained, I used a final set of 6,138 journals to study the distribution of the variables defined above. The distribution of benefit differed from the distribution of investment and yield. The top 20-ranked journals were not the same for all three variables. The yield of self-citations on the journal impact factor was, in general, very modest.