Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of citations on the significance of decimal places in the computation of journal impact factors

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Journal impact factors (JIF) are computed by Thomson Reuters to three decimal places. Some authors have cast doubt on the validity of the third decimal place in JIFs. In this paper I present a new approach to evaluate the significance of decimal places in JIFs. To do so, two modified JIFs were computed by adding or removing one citation to the number used by Thomson Reuters to compute the JIF for journals listed in the 2008 Journal Citation Report. The rationale is that one citation is the minimum amount of impact that can be observed and analyzed. Next, the modified JIFs were compared with the original JIF to identify the decimal place that changed as consequence of adding or removing one citation. The results suggest that for about two-third of journals, the number of places used by Thomson Reuters to compute JIFs can be considered appropriate for the most part.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79, 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagatin, E., & Gontijo, B. (2011). The expansion of a measure: what is a scientific journal impact factor and how important is it for academic Brazilian dermatologists. International Journal of Dermatology, 50, 1432–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). Journal report card. Scientometrics, 92, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 93–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T. (2007). The impact factor of scientific and scholarly journals: Its use and misuse in research evaluation. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2012). Some research ideas on journal impact factors as a crucial topic in science dynamics. Scientometrics, 92, 293–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2013). The effect of additional citations on the stability of journal citation reports categories. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1116-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golubic, R., Rudes, M., Kovacic, N., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2008). Calculating impact factor: How bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D. C. (2007). Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Upadhyay, S., & Medhi, B. (2009). Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: Its use and misuse. Singapore Medical Journal, 50, 752–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that’s devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, A12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). The generalized propensity score methodology for estimating unbiased journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 92, 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, J., & Counsell, C. (2002). Impact factors: Uses and abuses. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 14, 209–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A. and Garfield, E. (2004). Rank-normalized impact factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories. Proceedings of the 67th ASIS&T Annual Meeting, 41, 507–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A., & Garfield, E. (2012). Rank normalization of impact factors will resolve Vanclay’s dilemma with TRIF. Comments on the paper by Jerome Vanclay. Scientometrics, 92, 409–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators: A protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Perez, R., Delgado, E., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2010). Principios y criterios utilizados en España por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científicas: 1989–2009. Psicothema, 22, 898–908.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao, J., & Shen, H. (2011). The outflow of academic papers from China: Why is it happening and can it be stemmed? Learned Publishing, 24, 95–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sombatsompop, N., & Markpin, T. (2005). Making an equality of ISI Impact factors for different subject fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 676–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics, 92, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (2013). Would it be possible to increase the Hirsch-index, π-index or CDS-index by increasing the number of publications or citations only by unity? Journal of Informetrics, 7, 72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G., & Wang, L. (2007). The self-cited rate of scientific journals and the manipulation of their impact factors. Scientometrics, 73, 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92, 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank K. Shashok for improving the use of English in the manuscript and for suggestions about the content. I thank also two anonymous referees for their suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad de Alcalá, 28871 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Miguel Campanario

Authors
  1. Juan Miguel Campanario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Miguel Campanario.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campanario, J.M. The effect of citations on the significance of decimal places in the computation of journal impact factors. Scientometrics 99, 289–298 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1206-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1206-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation