A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions

  title={A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions},
  author={Vincent Larivi{\`e}re and V{\'e}ronique Kiermer and Catriona J. MacCallum and Marcia K. McNutt and Mark Patterson and Bernd Pulverer and Sowmya Swaminathan and Stuart Taylor and Stephen Curry},
Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs. Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of these distributions and the variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals… 
Validity of Basing Authors' Publication Strategy on Journal Impact Factors
It is shown that the Impact Factor (IF) of a journal allows to rationally achieve this goal, and is well described by a modified logistic function, and provides an easy-to-use rule to guide a publication strategy.
Web of Science’s Citation Median Metrics Overcome the Major Constraints of the Journal Impact Factor
The results indicate that the article citation median and review citation median overcome several concerns that have been raised about the JIF and seem to provide enhanced objectivity as an indicator of journal impact in publishing original research and reviews.
Citation benefit - A journal comparison metric based on full citation distributions
A new measure, "citation benefit", is presented, which quantifies the probability that a random paper in journal A has more citations than a randomPaper in journal B, and therefore provides an intuitive way to compare journals' citation capacity, and takes into account full citation distributions.
Citation success index - An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric
Citation inequality and the Journal Impact Factor: median, mean, (does it) matter?
Correlation of mean citations with the measures of citation inequality indicated that the unequal distribution of citations per journal is more prominent and, thus, relevant for journals with lower citation rates.
Influence of selected factors in journals' citations
  • R. Giri
  • Business
    Aslib J. Inf. Manag.
  • 2018
It is found that citations distribution in majority of the journals under the study is highly skewed and more likely to follow log-normal distribution, and the nature of authorship in papers was found to have positive effect on citation counts.
Decision letter for "Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations"
Articles in high-impact journals are by definition more highly cited on average. But are they cited more often because the articles are somehow “better”? Or are they cited more often simply because
Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?
Using computer simulations, it is demonstrated that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor.
Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations
  • V. Traag
  • Business
    Quantitative Science Studies
  • 2021
This work compares citations of preprints to citations of the published version to infer the causal effect of journals on citations, and finds that high-impact journals select articles that tend to attract more citations and augment the citation rate of published articles.


Beware the impact factor.
  • Political Science
    Nature materials
  • 2013
The robustness of the impact factor as a predictive metric is clear: citations to non-primary content and the apparently too short two-year time window have little effect on the overall correlation, and it is clear that but for outliers the impact factors is an appropriate measure of journal quality according to citations.
The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics
This paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high impact journals obtain, on average, twice as much citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors.
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Alternative methods for evaluating research are being sought, such as citation rates and journal impact factors, which seem to be quantitative and objective indicators directly related to published science.
Nefarious Numbers
The impact factor for a journal in a given year is calculated by ISI (Thomson Reuters) as the average number of citations in that year to the articles the journal published in the preceding two years.
Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias.
  • T. Perneger
  • Medicine
    Journal of clinical epidemiology
  • 2010
The Skewness of Science
  • P. Seglen
  • Environmental Science
    J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
  • 1992
The citational variability between articles in a journal is less (semilog linearity) than in the corresponding field as a whole, suggesting that each journal represents a select, stratified sample of the field.
The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age
This work compares the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009 to bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.
Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation.
In 1971, the Institute for Scientfic Information decided to undertake a systematic analysis of journal citation patterns across the whole of science and technology.
History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences
The paper shows how the various building blocks of the dominant JIF came into being and argues that these building blocks were all constructed fairly arbitrarily or for different purposes than those that govern the contemporary use of the JIF.
Impact Factor Distortions
This Editorial coincides with the release of the San Francisco declaration on research Assessment, the outcome of a gathering of concerned scientists at the December 2012 meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology, which aims to stop the use of the "journal impact factor" in judging an individual scientist's work.