Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008)
0.01
0.0132371 = product of:
0.0397113 = sum of:
0.0397113 = product of:
0.0794226 = sum of:
0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0794226 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.
