Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Use of citation as a proxy unit in deriving research impact indicators largely hinges on universal referencing norms promulgated by Robert K. Merton. However, signals arising out of research fields indicate that referencing practices have often been affected by prejudices and expectations. Journals’ citation oeuvre may also be inflated by intelligent mix of citation optimizing tools, which render it difficult to detect. This study reveals that reach of a research publication (measured by its distinct users) is not always proportional to its citation counts. The application of raw citations as units to derive impact of research publication entities like journals thus poses a great threat to research community itself. This study introduces a new ranking method for journals where distinct authors (contributing as well as citing) are taken as units rather than raw citations. By considering authors as building units in the new indicator, the method can nullify/lessen the effect of common citation optimizing factors like journal self-citations, author self-citations and recitations on it. To legitimate the proposed method, an experimental study is conducted on 30 semi-systematically selected ‘Library and Information Science’ journals. It reflects that the new indicator favors authority of those journals that have relatively low self-citations and recitations.

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

  • Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. (2007). How impact factors changed medical publishing–and science. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 334(7593), 561–564. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39142.454086.AD.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorus, C., & Waltman, L. (2016). A large-scale analysis of impact factor biased journal self-citations. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0161021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London, England: Taylor Graham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2005a). Warm bodies, cold facts: The embodiment and emplacement of knowledge claims. In P. Ingwersen& B. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conferences on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 1–12). Stockholm: Karolinska University Press.

  • Cronin, B. (2005b). The hand of science. Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2016). The incessant chattering of text. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication: A festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 13–19). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015628320056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. (2012). The emergence of a citation cartel. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/20 12/04/10/emergence-of-a-citation-cartel/.

  • Davis, P., (2017). How much citation manipulation is acceptable? https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/05/30/how-much-citation-manipulation-is-acceptable.

  • Downey, G. (2007). Human geography and information studies. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 683–727). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: Observing Goodhart’slaw in action. GigaScience, 8(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fister, I., Fister, I., & Perc, M. (2016). Toward the discovery of citation cartels in citation networks. Frontiers in Physics, 4, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, J. H. F., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M. (2010). Journal influence factors. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 239–248.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. F. (2007). Journal self-citation-analyzing the JIF mechanism. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Sher, I. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giri, R. (2019). Influence of selected factors in journals’ citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-07-2017-0170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giri, R., & Chaudhuri, S. K. (2020). Effect of common extraneous citation optimizing factors on journal impact indicators. Journal of Scientometric Research, 9(1), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1964). Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature, 204(4955), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/204225a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HemmatEsfe, M., Wongwises, S., Asadi, A., Karimipour, A., & Akbari, M. (2015). Mandatory and self-citation; types, reasons, their benefits and disadvantages. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(6), 1581–1585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9598-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heneberg, P. (2016). From excessive journal self-cites to citation stacking: Analysis of journal self-citation kinetics in search for journals, which boost their scientometric indicators. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0153730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 46 16569 16572

  • Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015). A generalized view of self-citation: Direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78(1), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561, 167–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2011). Author self citation in the general medicine literature. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, K., Ajiferuke, I., & Wolfram, D. (2014). Extending citer analysis to journal impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 100(1), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1274-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahian, O., & Wongwises, S. (2015). Is it ethical for journals to request self-citation? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 531–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mählck, P., & Persson, O. (2000). Socio-bibliometric mapping of intra-departmental networks. Scientometrics, 49(91), 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (2013). Whither research integrity; plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2016). Toward new indicators of a journal’s manuscript peer review process. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rekdal, O. B. (2014). Academic citation practice: A sinking sheep? Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019). Current concepts on bibliometrics: A brief review about impact factor, eigenfactor score, citescore, SCImago journal rank, source-normalised impact per paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 188(3), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2002). Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues. Library Trends, 50(3), 418–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. (2002). Journal diffusion factor: a new approach to measuring research influence. Aslib Proceedings, 54(2), 77–84.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2008). The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe’s g-index. Scientometrics, 76(1), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2009). The influence of self-citation corrections and the fractionalized counting of multi-authored manuscripts on the Hirsch index. Annalen der Physik, 18(9), 607–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, S. C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation Impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770–1783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self- citations across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of Information Science, 24(6), 431–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2015). Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation increases? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1923–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thombs, B. D., Levis, A. W., Razykov, I., Syamchandra, A., Leentjens, A. F. G., Levenson, J. W., & Lumley, M. A. (2015). Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1987). A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics, 12(1–2), 47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2016). Authors as persons and authors as bundles of words. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication: A festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 199–224). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure? Longitudinal evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Scientific publications: Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, A. W., Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, S. (2019). The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Research Policy, 48(6), 1513–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., et al. (2015). The rising ride. The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Authors are also grateful to Dr. Shubhabrata Das, Asst. Prof., Dept. of Mathematics, Presidency University for his insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and to Dr. Debashis Datta, Asst. Prof., Dept. of Physics, Presidency University for his support in the quantitative analysis of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Presidency University, 86/1 College Street, Kolkata, 700073, India

    Rabishankar Giri

  2. Department of Library and Information Science, University of Calcutta, 87/1 College Street, Kolkata, 700073, India

    Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri

Authors
  1. Rabishankar Giri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rabishankar Giri.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giri, R., Chaudhuri, S.K. Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility. Scientometrics 126, 2189–2208 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03850-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03850-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation