Skip to main content
Log in

Reliability-based citation impact factor and the manipulation of impact factor

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to the definition of reliability-based citation impact factor (R-impact factor) proposed by KUO & RUPE and the cumulative citation age distribution model, a mathematical expression of the relationship between R-impact factor and impact factor is established in this paper. By simulation of the change processes of the R-impact factor and impact factor in the manipulation process of the impact factor, it is found that the effect of manipulation can be partly corrected by the R-impact factor in some cases. Based on the Journal Citation Report database, impact factors of 4 normal journals and 4 manipulated journals were collected. The journals’ R-impact factors and self-cited rates in the previous two years were calculated for each year during the period 2000 to 2007, and various characteristics influenced by the manipulation were analyzed. We find that the R-impact factor has greater fairness than the impact factor for journals with relatively short cited half-lives. Finally, some issues about using the R-impact factor as a measure for evaluating scientific journals are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin, M., Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factor: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, T. (2006). Impact factors rocked by manipulation charge. http://www.wame.org/wame-listserve-discussions/manipulating-the-impact-factor.

  • Cameron, B.D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2000). The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 158–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M.E., & Alexiou, V.G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae et therapiae Experimentalis, 56(4), 223–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassoulaki, A., Paraskeva, A., Papilas, K., & Karabinis, G. (2000). Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 84, 266–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmingsson, A. (2002). Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. American Journal of Roentgenology, 178(3), 767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A.W. (2003). Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: What do the numbers really mean? Forensic Science International, 133, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, J. (2007). Journal self-citation rates in ecological sciences. Scientometrics, 70(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, W., & Rupe, J. (2007). R-impact factor: Reliability-based citation impact factor. IEEE Transaction on Reliability, 56(3), 366–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J.B. (2002). Impact factors and publishing research. The Scientist, 16(18), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procianoy, R.S. (2007). The journal impact factor today. Journal De Pediatria, 83(6), 487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2007). Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Europhysics Letters, 78(3), 30002-1–30002-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevinc, A. (2004). Manipulating impact factor: An unethical issue or an editor’s choice? Swiss Medical Weekly, 134:410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1997). Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal, 314, 461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallner, C. (2009). Ban impact factor manipulation. Science, 323(5913), 461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, G.H. (2001). Citation rates and impact factors: Should they matter? British Journal of Radiology, 74, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G., & Li, Y.J. (2009). Identification of referencing and citation processes of scientific journals based on the citation distribution model, Scientometrics, 81(2).

  • Yu, G., & Wang, L. (2007). The self-cited rate of scientific journals and the manipulation of their impact factors. Scientometrics, 73(3), 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G., Wang, X.H., & Yu, D.R. (2005). The influence of publication delays on impact factors. Scientometrics, 64(2), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by grant G70571020 from the National Nature Science Foundation of China and New Century Excellent Talents in University (Grant No: NCET-07-0244) of Education of China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guang Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yu, G., Yang, DH. & Liang, W. Reliability-based citation impact factor and the manipulation of impact factor. Scientometrics 83, 259–270 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0083-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0083-1

Keywords

Navigation