Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=1228,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.