-
Effect of perceived preprint effectiveness and research intensity on posting behaviour
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Open science is increasingly recognised worldwide, with preprint posting emerging as a key strategy. This study explores the factors influencing researchers' adoption of preprint publication, particularly the perceived effectiveness of this practice and research intensity indicators such as publication and review frequency. Using open data from a comprehensive survey with 5,873 valid responses, we…
▽ More
Open science is increasingly recognised worldwide, with preprint posting emerging as a key strategy. This study explores the factors influencing researchers' adoption of preprint publication, particularly the perceived effectiveness of this practice and research intensity indicators such as publication and review frequency. Using open data from a comprehensive survey with 5,873 valid responses, we conducted regression analyses to control for demographic variables. Researchers' productivity, particularly the number of journal articles and books published, greatly influences the frequency of preprint deposits. The perception of the effectiveness of preprints follows this. Preprints are viewed positively in terms of early access to new research, but negatively in terms of early feedback. Demographic variables, such as gender and the type of organisation conducting the research, do not have a significant impact on the production of preprints when other factors are controlled for. However, the researcher's discipline, years of experience and geographical region generally have a moderate effect on the production of preprints. These findings highlight the motivations and barriers associated with preprint publication and provide insights into how researchers perceive the benefits and challenges of this practice within the broader context of open science.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
Linking Science and Industry: Influence of Scientific Research on Technological Innovation through Patent Citations
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
Alejandro Rodríguez-Caro,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
This study explores the connection between patent citations and scientific publications across six fields: Biochemistry, Genetics, Pharmacology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. Analysing 117,590 papers from 2014 to 2023, the research emphasises how publication year, open access (OA) status, and discipline influence patent citations. Openly accessible papers, particularly those in hybrid OA…
▽ More
This study explores the connection between patent citations and scientific publications across six fields: Biochemistry, Genetics, Pharmacology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. Analysing 117,590 papers from 2014 to 2023, the research emphasises how publication year, open access (OA) status, and discipline influence patent citations. Openly accessible papers, particularly those in hybrid OA journals or green OA repositories, are significantly more likely to be cited in patents, seven times more than those mentioned in blogs, and over twice as likely compared to older publications. However, papers with policy-related references are less frequently cited, indicating that patents may prioritise commercially viable innovations over those addressing societal challenges. Disciplinary differences reveal distinct innovation patterns across sectors. While academic visibility via blogs or platforms like Mendeley increases within scholarly circles, these have limited impact on patent citations. The study also finds that increased funding, possibly tied to applied research trends and fully open access journals, negatively affects patent citations. Social media presence and the number of authors have minimal impact. These findings highlight the complex factors shaping the integration of scientific research into technological innovations.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
-
Generative artificial intelligence usage by researchers at work: Effects of gender, career stage, type of workplace, and perceived barriers
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
Alexis Jorge López-Puig,
María Isabel Dorta-González,
Sara M. González-Betancor
Abstract:
The integration of generative artificial intelligence technology into research environments has become increasingly common in recent years, representing a significant shift in the way researchers approach their work. This paper seeks to explore the factors underlying the frequency of use of generative AI amongst researchers in their professional environments. As survey data may be influenced by a…
▽ More
The integration of generative artificial intelligence technology into research environments has become increasingly common in recent years, representing a significant shift in the way researchers approach their work. This paper seeks to explore the factors underlying the frequency of use of generative AI amongst researchers in their professional environments. As survey data may be influenced by a bias towards scientists interested in AI, potentially skewing the results towards the perspectives of these researchers, this study uses a regression model to isolate the impact of specific factors such as gender, career stage, type of workplace, and perceived barriers to using AI technology on the frequency of use of generative AI. It also controls for other relevant variables such as direct involvement in AI research or development, collaboration with AI companies, geographic location, and scientific discipline. Our results show that researchers who face barriers to AI adoption experience an 11% increase in tool use, while those who cite insufficient training resources experience an 8% decrease. Female researchers experience a 7% decrease in AI tool usage compared to men, while advanced career researchers experience a significant 19% decrease. Researchers associated with government advisory groups are 45% more likely to use AI tools frequently than those in government roles. Researchers in for-profit companies show an increase of 19%, while those in medical research institutions and hospitals show an increase of 16% and 15%, respectively. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms driving the use of generative AI tools amongst researchers, with valuable implications for both academia and industry.
△ Less
Submitted 31 August, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
Societal and scientific impact of policy research: A large-scale empirical study of some explanatory factors using Altmetric and Overton
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
Alejandro Rodríguez-Caro,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
This study investigates how scientific research influences policymaking by analyzing citations of research articles in policy documents (policy impact) for nearly 125,000 articles across 434 public policy journals. We reveal distinct citation patterns between policymakers and other stakeholders like researchers, journalists, and the public. News and blog mentions, social media engagement, and open…
▽ More
This study investigates how scientific research influences policymaking by analyzing citations of research articles in policy documents (policy impact) for nearly 125,000 articles across 434 public policy journals. We reveal distinct citation patterns between policymakers and other stakeholders like researchers, journalists, and the public. News and blog mentions, social media engagement, and open access publications (excluding fully open access) significantly increase the likelihood of a research article being cited in policy documents. Conversely, articles locked behind paywalls and those published under the full open access model (based on Altmetric data) have a lower chance of being policy-cited. Publication year and policy type show no significant influence. Our findings emphasize the crucial role of science communication channels like news media and social media in bridging the gap between research and policy. Interestingly, academic citations hold a weaker influence on policy citations compared to news mentions, suggesting a potential disconnect between how researchers reference research and how policymakers utilize it. This highlights the need for improved communication strategies to ensure research informs policy decisions more effectively. This study provides valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and science communicators. Researchers can tailor their dissemination efforts to reach policymakers through media channels. Policymakers can leverage these findings to identify research with higher policy relevance. Science communicators can play a critical role in translating research for policymakers and fostering dialogue between the scientific and policymaking communities.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Purpose: Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. We quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type. Design/methodology/approach: Citation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in t…
▽ More
Purpose: Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. We quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type. Design/methodology/approach: Citation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in the year 2018, are studied. We consider funding acknowledgements in the research articles. The data source is Dimensions and the units of study are research articles in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Findings: Most cited goals by researchers do not coincide with those that arouse greater social attention. A small proportion of articles accumulates a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citation and social attention grow with funding. Thus, funded research has a greater probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned in social media. Funded research receives on average two to three times more citations and 2.5 to 4.5 times more social attention than unfunded research. Moreover, the open access modalities gold and hybrid have the greatest advantages in citation and social attention due to funding. Originality: The joint evaluation of the effect of both funding and open access on social attention. Research limitations: Specific topics were studied in a specific period. Studying other topics and/or different time periods might result in different findings. Practical implications: When funding to publish in open or hybrid access journals is not available, it is advisable to self-archiving the pre-print or post-print version in a freely accessible repository. Social implications: Although cautiously, it is also advisable to consider the social impact of the research to complement the scientific impact in the evaluation of the research.
△ Less
Submitted 3 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
Collaboration Effect by Co-Authorship on Academic Citation and Social Attention of Research
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions of the impact of research results. Both measures do not correlate with each other, and they are influenced by many factors. Among these factors are the field of research, the type of access, and co-authorship. In this study, the increase in the impact due to co-authorship in scientific articles disaggregated by field of research a…
▽ More
Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions of the impact of research results. Both measures do not correlate with each other, and they are influenced by many factors. Among these factors are the field of research, the type of access, and co-authorship. In this study, the increase in the impact due to co-authorship in scientific articles disaggregated by field of research and access type, was quantified. For this, the citations and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 by a total of 244,880 research articles published in the year 2018, were analyzed. The data source was Dimensions.ai, and the units of study were research articles in Economics, History and Archaeology, and Mathematics. As the main results, a small proportion of the articles received a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citations and social attention in-creased, in general, with the number of co-authors. Thus, the greater the number of co-authors, the greater the probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned on social media. The advantage in citation and social attention due to collaboration is independent of the access type for the publication. Furthermore, although collaboration with an additional co-author is in general positive in terms of citation and social attention, these positive effects reduce as the number of co-authors increases.
△ Less
Submitted 15 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
The influence of funding on the Open Access citation advantage
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Some of the citation advantage in open access is likely due to more access allows more people to read and hence cite articles they otherwise would not. However, causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias. Several factors can affect the observed differences in citation rates. Funder mandates can be one of them. Funders are likely to have OA requirement, and well-funded stu…
▽ More
Some of the citation advantage in open access is likely due to more access allows more people to read and hence cite articles they otherwise would not. However, causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias. Several factors can affect the observed differences in citation rates. Funder mandates can be one of them. Funders are likely to have OA requirement, and well-funded studies are more likely to receive more citations than poorly funded studies. In this paper this hypothesis is tested. Thus, we studied the effect of funding on the publication modality and the citations received in more than 128 thousand research articles, of which 31% were funded. These research articles come from 40 randomly selected subject categories in the year 2016, and the citations received from the period 2016-2020 in the Scopus database. We found open articles published in hybrid journals were considerably more cited than those in open access journals. Thus, articles under the hybrid gold modality are cite on average twice as those in the gold modality. This is the case regardless of funding, so this evidence is strong. Moreover, within the same publication modality, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50% more citations than unfunded ones. The most cited modality is the hybrid gold and the least cited is the gold, well below even the paywalled. Furthermore, the use of open access repositories considerably increases the citations received, especially for those articles without funding. Thus, the articles in open access repositories (green) are 50% more cited than the paywalled ones. This evidence is remarkable and does not depend on funding. Excluding the gold modality, there is a citation advantage in more than 75% of the cases and it is considerably greater among unfunded articles. This result is strong both across fields and over time.
△ Less
Submitted 4 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Contribution of the Open Access modality to the impact of hybrid journals controlling by field and time effects
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals. For this, the research articles in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period…
▽ More
Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals. For this, the research articles in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period 2017-2020 in the Scopus database, were analyzed. The journals were randomly selected from those with share of OA papers higher than some minimal value. More than 60 thousand research articles were analyzed in the sample, of which 24% under the OA modality. As results, we obtain that cites per article in both hybrid modalities strongly correlate. However, there is no correlation between the OA prevalence and cites per article in any of the hybrid modalities. There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals. Moreover, the OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time. We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals. Finally, the OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science.
△ Less
Submitted 23 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
-
To what extent is researchers' data-sharing motivated by formal mechanisms of recognition and credit?
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
Sara M. González-Betancor,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
Data sharing by researchers is a centerpiece of Open Science principles and scientific progress. For a sample of 6019 researchers, we analyze the extent/frequency of their data sharing. Specifically, the relationship with the following four variables: how much they value data citations, the extent to which their data-sharing activities are formally recognized, their perceptions of whether sufficie…
▽ More
Data sharing by researchers is a centerpiece of Open Science principles and scientific progress. For a sample of 6019 researchers, we analyze the extent/frequency of their data sharing. Specifically, the relationship with the following four variables: how much they value data citations, the extent to which their data-sharing activities are formally recognized, their perceptions of whether sufficient credit is awarded for data sharing, and the reported extent to which data citations motivate their data sharing. In addition, we analyze the extent to which researchers have reused openly accessible data, as well as how data sharing varies by professional age-cohort, and its relationship to the value they place on data citations. Furthermore, we consider most of the explanatory variables simultaneously by estimating a multiple linear regression that predicts the extent/frequency of their data sharing. We use the dataset of the State of Open Data Survey 2019 by Springer Nature and Digital Science. Results do allow us to conclude that a desire for recognition/credit is a major incentive for data sharing. Thus, the possibility of receiving data citations is highly valued when sharing data, especially among younger researchers, irrespective of the frequency with which it is practiced. Finally, the practice of data sharing was found to be more prevalent at late research career stages, despite this being when citations are less valued and have a lower motivational impact. This could be due to the fact that later-career researchers may benefit less from keeping their data private.
△ Less
Submitted 14 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
Open Access effect on uncitedness: A large-scale study controlling by discipline, source type and visibility
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-González,
Rafael Suárez-Vega,
María Isabel Dorta-González
Abstract:
There are many factors that affect the probability of being uncited during the first years after publication. In this study, we analyze three of these factors for journals, conference proceedings and book series: the field (in 316 subject categories of the Scopus database), the access modality (open access vs. paywalled), and the visibility of the source (through the percentile of the average impa…
▽ More
There are many factors that affect the probability of being uncited during the first years after publication. In this study, we analyze three of these factors for journals, conference proceedings and book series: the field (in 316 subject categories of the Scopus database), the access modality (open access vs. paywalled), and the visibility of the source (through the percentile of the average impact in the subject category). We quantify the effect of these factors on the probability of being uncited. This probability is measured through the percentage of uncited documents in the serial sources of the Scopus database at about two years after publication. As a main result, we do not find any strong correlation between open access and uncitedness. Within the group of most cited journals (Q1 and top 10%), open access journals generally have somewhat lower uncited rates. However, in the intermediate quartiles (Q2 and Q3) almost no differences are observed, while for Q4 the uncited rate is again somewhat lower in the case of the OA group. This is important because it provides new evidence in the debate about open access citation advantage.
△ Less
Submitted 19 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Reconsidering the gold open access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: an analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009-2014
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Sara M. Gonzalez-Betancor,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez
Abstract:
Since Lawrence in 2001 proposed the open access (OA) citation advantage, the potential benefit of OA in relation to the citation impact has been discussed in depth. The methodology to test this postulate ranges from comparing the impact factors of OA journals versus traditional ones, to comparing citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, conclusions are…
▽ More
Since Lawrence in 2001 proposed the open access (OA) citation advantage, the potential benefit of OA in relation to the citation impact has been discussed in depth. The methodology to test this postulate ranges from comparing the impact factors of OA journals versus traditional ones, to comparing citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, conclusions are not entirely consistent among fields, and two possible explications have been suggested in those fields where a citation advantage has been observed for OA: the early view and the selection bias postulates. In this study, a longitudinal and multidisciplinary analysis of the gold OA citation advantage is developed. All research articles in all journals for all subject categories in the multidisciplinary database Web of Science are considered. A total of 1,137,634 articles - 86,712 OA articles (7.6%) and 1,050,922 non-OA articles (92.4%)- published in 2009 are analysed. The citation window considered goes from 2009 to 2014, and data are aggregated for the 249 disciplines (subject categories). At journal level, we also study the evolution of journal impact factors for OA and non-OA journals in those disciplines whose OA prevalence is higher (top 36 subject categories). As the main conclusion, there is no generalizable gold OA citation advantage, neither at article nor at journal level.
△ Less
Submitted 9 March, 2017;
originally announced March 2017.
-
Research status and trends in Operations Research and Management Science (OR/MS) journals: A bibliometric analysis based on the Web of Science database 2001-2012
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez,
Dolores Rosa Santos-Penate,
Rafael Suarez-Vega
Abstract:
A bibliometric analysis to evaluate global scientific production in the subject category of Operations Research and Management Science (OR/MS) from 2001 to 2012 was applied. Data was based on the Web of Science (Science Citation Index) database compiled by Thomson Reuters. The results showed that the OR/MS research has significantly increased over the past twelve years. The Bradford core journals…
▽ More
A bibliometric analysis to evaluate global scientific production in the subject category of Operations Research and Management Science (OR/MS) from 2001 to 2012 was applied. Data was based on the Web of Science (Science Citation Index) database compiled by Thomson Reuters. The results showed that the OR/MS research has significantly increased over the past twelve years. The Bradford core journals in the category were identified. The researchers paid great attention to networks, control, and simulation. Among the countries, USA attained a dominant position in global research in the field.
△ Less
Submitted 17 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
-
An approach to the author citation potential: Measures of scientific performance which are invariant across scientific fields
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez,
Rafael Suarez-Vega
Abstract:
The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In the past, the citation potential was studied at journal level considering the average number of references in established groups of journals (for examp…
▽ More
The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In the past, the citation potential was studied at journal level considering the average number of references in established groups of journals (for example, the crown indicator is based on the journal subject categories in the Web of Science database). In this paper, some characterizations of the author's scientific research through three different research dimensions are proposed: production (journal papers), impact (journal citations), and reference (bibliographical sources). Then, we propose different measures of the citation potential for authors based on a proportion of these dimensions. An empirical application, in a set of 120 randomly selected highly productive authors from the CSIC Research Centre (Spain) in four subject areas, shows that the ratio between production and impact dimensions is a normalized measure of the citation potential at the level of individual authors. Moreover, this ratio reduces the between-group variance in relation to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of the indicators analysed. Furthermore, it is consistent with the type of journal impact indicator used. A possible application of this result is in the selection and promotion process within interdisciplinary institutions, since it allows comparisons of authors based on their particular scientific research.
△ Less
Submitted 8 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
-
Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez,
Dolores Rosa Santos-Penate,
Rafael Suarez-Vega
Abstract:
The journal impact factor 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 source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this cita…
▽ More
The journal impact factor 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 source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analysed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2014;
originally announced February 2014.
-
Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez
Abstract:
The citation distribution of a researcher shows the impact of their production and determines the success of their scientific career. However, its application in scientific evaluation is difficult due to the bi-dimensional character of the distribution. Some bibliometric indexes that try to synthesize in a numerical value the principal characteristics of this distribution have been proposed recent…
▽ More
The citation distribution of a researcher shows the impact of their production and determines the success of their scientific career. However, its application in scientific evaluation is difficult due to the bi-dimensional character of the distribution. Some bibliometric indexes that try to synthesize in a numerical value the principal characteristics of this distribution have been proposed recently. In contrast with other bibliometric measures, the biases that the distribution tails provoke, are reduced by the h-index. However, some limitations in the discrimination among researchers with different publication habits are presented in this index. This index penalizes selective researchers, distinguished by the large number of citations received, as compared to large producers. In this work, two original sets of indexes, the central area indexes and the central interval indexes, that complement the h-index to include the central shape of the citation distribution, are proposed and compared.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2013;
originally announced April 2013.
-
Comparing journals from different fields of Science and Social Science through a JCR Subject Categories Normalized Impact Factor
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez
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…
▽ More
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 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 (CNIF) 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.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2013;
originally announced April 2013.
-
Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor
Authors:
Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,
Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez
Abstract:
Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIF) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to f…
▽ More
Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIF) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2013;
originally announced April 2013.
