Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the average JIF percentile make a difference?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Average journal impact factor (JIF) percentile is a novel bibliometric indicator introduced by Thomson Reuters. It’s of great significance to study the characteristics of its data distribution and relationship with other bibliometric indicators, in order to assess its usefulness as a new bibliometric indicator. The research began by analyzing the meaning of average JIF percentile, and compared its statistical difference with impact factor. Based upon factor analysis, the paper used multivariate regression and quantile regression to study the relationship between average JIF percentile and other bibliometric indicators. Results showed that average JIF percentile had changed the statistical characteristic of impact factor, e.g. improved the relative value of impact factor, having smaller variation coefficient and distribution closer to normal distribution. Because it’s non-parametric transformation, it cannot be used to measure the relative gap between journals; Average JIF percentile had the highest regression coefficient with journal impact, followed by timeliness and lastly the citable items; The lower the average JIF percentile, the higher the elastic coefficient of journal impact; When average JIF percentile was extremely high or extremely low, citable items were not correlated with the average JIF percentile at all; When average JIF percentile was low, elastic coefficient of timeliness was even higher; Average JIF percentile was not a proper indicator for multivariate journal evaluation; Average JIF percentile had both the advantages and disadvantages of impact factor, and thus had the same limitation in applying as the impact factor.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2009). Citation statistics. Statistical Science, 24(1), 1–26.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). The problem of percentile rank scores used with small reference sets. JASIST, 64(3), 650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Mutz, R. (2013). The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 158–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2011). Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 228–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1985). Sources of information on specific subjects. Journal of information Science, 10(4), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2014). Analysis of the distribution of cited journals according to their positions in the h-core of citing journal listed in Journal Citation Reports. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 534–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. L., & Nelson, R. D. (1998). Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism. The American Statistician, 52(2), 181–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10 % (or top-25 %?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2133–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2012). Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 416–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Reuters. JCR Reports. (2016). http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/9586-TRS.html. Accessed 19 Mar 2016.

  • Vinkler, P. (2008). Introducing the current contribution index for characterizing the recent, relevant impact of journals. Scientometrics, 79(2), 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Zhong, Y. (2012). The citation-based indicator and combined impact indicator—new options for measuring impact. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 631–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by China Scholarship Council (No. 201506270024) and the National Natural Science Fund of China (NSFC) (No. 71303179). The authors would thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International business school, Yunan University of finance and economics, Kunming, 650221, China

    Liping Yu

  2. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Houqiang Yu

Authors
  1. Liping Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Houqiang Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Houqiang Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, L., Yu, H. Does the average JIF percentile make a difference?. Scientometrics 109, 1979–1987 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2156-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2156-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation