Journal impact measures in bibliometric research

By Wolfgang Glänzel, Henk F. Moed. Scientometrics, 2004

561 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d0e49d85bcff03d639f6385222621ccb2d267d7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? (2011, background): “Many concerns have been dealt with repeatedly in earlier reviews (e.g., Braun and Glanzel 1995, Glanzel and Moed 2002, Bensman 2007, 2008, Braun 2007), so the current analysis seeks to offer a brief overview and synthesis to establish a pathway forward.”
Empirical Evidence Against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation (2004, background): “…“representativeness” of journal articles is more of a problem in the social sci- ences, and less so in the physical sciences, see Hicks 1999+ 39+ See Glanzel and Moed 2002; Bourke and Butler 1996; and Garfield 1979+ 624 International Organization Table 7+ Compare the world publication…”
If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world (2007, background): “First, it captures differences in citation-cycles: for the majority of journals the peak citation year is the second, but for the journal that peak in later years, the IF is systematically underestimated ( Glanzel and Moed, 2002 ).”
h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields (2009, background): “…initial proposal, the fact that the h-index cannot directly be used to compare research workers of different areas, mainly due to lack of normalization for reference practices and traditions in the different fields of science (Glänzel and Moed (2002); Pinski and Narin (1976)) was pointed out.”
Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals (2009, methodology): “Several authors proposed useful indicators based on this principle using a categorization of scientific journals into some 150 subject categories (e.g., Braun, Glänzel and Schubert (1988); Sen, 1992; Marshakova-Shaikevich, 1996; Van Leeuwen et al., 2002).”
A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science (2017, methodology): “However, there are still import ant weaknesses similar to those mentioned before [15].”
Patent and Publication Activities of German Professors: An Empirical Assessment of Their Co-Activity (2007, background): “Nonetheless, this measure is still influenced by subject characteristics, and is therefore –– without further normalization –– not appropriate for cross-field comparisons and multidisciplinary application (Glänzel and Moed, 2002) such as the patenting activity of German professors in this study.”
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, background): “I refer to Glänzel and Moed (2002), Rousseau (2002), Bar-Ilan (2008a), and Haustein (2012) for earlier overviews of the literature Leydesdorff (2009), and Elkins et al. (2010).”
Long‐Term Studies Contribute Disproportionately to Ecology and Policy (2017, methodology): “We chose these 2 years for our analyses because our review was initiated in late (September–December) 2012 for 2006 studies and September 2016 for 2010 studies, and citation rates tend to peak well beyond 2 years after publication (Glånzel and Moed 2002).”
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems (2004, unknown): “(1998) for a comparison of bibliometric assessment based on various indicators with peer review judgment in condensed matter physics, and to Rinia et al. (2001) for a study of the influence of interdisciplinarity on peer review in comparison with bibliometric assessment.”
Does culture still matter?: The effects of individualism on national innovation rates (2012, background): “They are generally affected by different incentives, produced by a different set of innovators, and judged according to different institutional standards (Bourke and Butler, 1996; McMillan and Hamilton, 2000; Glanzel and Moed, 2002).”
Heterogeneity of Patenting Activity and Its Implications for Scientific Research (2007, background): “Nonetheless, this measure is still influenced by subject characteristics, and is therefore – without further normalization – not appropriate for cross-field comparisons and multidisciplinary application (Glänzel and Moed, 2002) such as the patenting activity of German professors in this study.”