In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite. There are two conclusions from our study. First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues. The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64 . Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45 or more. Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27 in 1995 to 47 in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50 of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.
Lozano et al @cite_0 studied the relationship between impact factor and article citations. They examined three broad categories, Natural Sciences & Medicine , Physics and Social Sciences , over 1902-2009 and found that the correlation between impact factor of the journal and the citations its articles receive has been weakening since around 1990. In another part of their study, they computed the fraction of 10 in the 10 on Natural Sciences & Medicine . They found that a decreasing fraction of most-cited articles is being published in the most-cited journals.
@cite_0
2019972219 1978868011 2071195592 2017562693
This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20 , 50 , and 80 of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. An analysis of three major problems in the application of bibliometric research performance indicators is made in three separate sections. In the first section, the influence of field-dependent citation practices is analysed. The results indicate that rankings of publications from different fields, based on citation counts, can be affected seriously by differences between citation characteristics in those fields. If certain assumptions hold, one should expect high (short term) citation levels in Biochemistry, Celbiology and Biophysics. Medium citation levels are to be expected in Experimental and Molecular Physics, Physical and Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology and Plant Physiology, and low citation levels in Mathematics, Taxonomy, Pharmacognosy and Inorganic Solid State Chemistry. In the second section time-dependent factors are studied. It is shown that trend-analyses of output and impact based on bibliometric scores can be disturbed by changes in theSCI-database and in publication and citation practices. One of the disturbing factors is shown to be the inclusion of so called Books into theSCI data-base in 1977. Finally, in the third section a case is presented which illustrates the consequences of operating on incomplete bibliometric data in the evaluation of scientific performance. A completeness percentage of 99 for publication data is proposed as a standard in evaluations of the performance of small university research groups). Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004–2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92p of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics—within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a concentration measure based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.