Abstract
In this Letter to the Editor I comment on a recent Letter from Lutz Bornmann. I argue that the Poisson distribution is not an appropriate simplifying assumption to make when computing confidence intervals for journal impact factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Denoting the two regression coefficients by \(\beta_{0}\) and \(\beta_{1}\), then, for the Poisson distribution, if \(M_{i} = 1\), \(E\left( {V_{i} } \right) = 1 = e^{{\beta_{0} }}\). Therefore, \(\beta_{0} = 0\).
References
Bornmann, L. (2017). Confidence intervals for Journal Impact Factors. Scientometrics, 111, 1869–1871.
Fok, D., & Franses, P. H. (2007). Modeling the diffusion of scientific publications. Journal of Econometrics, 139, 376–390.
Stern, D. I. (2013). Uncertainty measures for economics journal impact factors. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 173–189.
Stern, D. I. (2014). High-ranked social science journal articles can be identified from early citation information. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112520.
Stringer, M. J., Sales-Pardo, M., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2010). Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1377–1385.
Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342, 127–132.
Acknowledgements
I thank Richard Tol for helpful feedback on an earlier draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stern, D.I. Comment on Bornmann (2017): confidence intervals for journal impact factors. Scientometrics 113, 1811–1813 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2507-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2507-7