---- "Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article" (Oct 2005) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4848.html Comment on: Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm [text appended at the end of the comment] Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required so many words on the subject: A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them readily correctable: (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the journal in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. Authors can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are deplorable, but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg era:. http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://scholar.google.com/ So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way for measuring and analyzing research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) co-citation counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other time-series analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity scores, (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation counts but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current ISI database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for e-print Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied Users - New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September 2003 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive Media International http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in preparation). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en accès libre en fonction de taux de citations http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict citations. British Medical Journal online. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing Eprint Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science 79(5):pp. 629-638. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, S. , Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. , Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint archives: globalisation, integration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , pages pp. 143-151. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM: A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005) is available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/ To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output, please describe your policy at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY: BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal http://romeo.eprints.org/ OR BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when a suitable one exists. http://www.doaj.org/ AND in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article in your institutional repository. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://archives.eprints.org/ http://openaccess.eprints.org/Received on Thu Apr 06 2006 - 12:48:58 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:17 GMT