Abstract
Comparative assessment of the journal literature produced by laboratories/institutions working in different fields is a difficult exercise. The impact factor of the journals is not a suitable indicator since citation practices vary with fields. The variation is corrected in this study using a measure, the “subfield corrected impact factor” and it is applied to the journal papers produced by the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories. This measure helped to compare the impact of journal literature in different fields.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. T. Balaban, How should citations to articles in high and low impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth?Scientometrics, 37 (1996) 495–498.
A. F. J. Van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies in Science and Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.
R. Todorov, W. Glänzel, Journal citation measures: A concise review,Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 47–65.
E. Garfield, The impact factor,Current Contents, 26 (1994) 3–7.
G. Davies, P. Royle, A Comparison of Australian university output using journal impact factors,Scientometrics, 35 (1996) 45–58.
A. J. Nederhof, A. F. J. Van Raan, A validation study of bibliometric indicators: The comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry,Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 427–435.
H. F. Moed, Th. N. Van Leeuwen, Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factors,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (1995) 461–467.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, The sweet and sour of journal citation rates,The Chemical Intelligencer (Jan. 1995) 31–-32.
P. O. Seglen, The skewness of science,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (1992) 628–638.
P. Vinkler, Bibliometric features of subfields,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 454.
B. K. Sen, Normalised Impact Factor,Journal of Documentation, 48 (1992).
G. Van Hooydonck, R. Gevaert, G. Mills-Prosst, H. Van De Sompel, K. Debackere, A bibliotheconomic analysis of the impact factors of scientific disciplines.Scientometrics, 30 (1984) 65–81.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Average and global impact factors of scientific disciplines,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 97–107.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data,Journal of Information Science, 22 (1996) 165–170.
R. Rousseau, A scientometric study of the scientific publications of LUC: period 1981–1993. Report.
R. E. De Bruin, A. Kint, M. Luwel, H. F. Moed, A study of research evaluation and planning: the university of Ghent.Research Evaluation, 3 (1993) 24–41.
P. Pichappan, Identification of mainstream journals of science: A method using the disciplinecontribution score,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 199–213.
P. Pichappan, N. K. Khatri, An iterative approach in finding the core of information,Information Services & Use, (1995) 27–32.
R. Miller, A. Manseau, Bibliometric indicators and the competitive environment of R&D laboratories,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 421–433.
A. F. J. Van Raan, Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 397–420.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Srinivasan, R., Raman, V., Meyyappan, N. et al. Assessment of the impact of the journal literature produced by Indian CSIR laboratories using subfield corrected impact. Scientometrics 44, 81–92 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458479
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458479