| By: |
Chang, C-L.;
McAleer, M.J. |
| Abstract: |
__Abstract__ The premise underlying the use of citations data is that higher
quality journals generally have a higher number of citations. The impact of
citations can be distorted in a number of ways. Journals can, and do, inflate
the number of citations through self citation practices, which may be
coercive. Another method for distorting journal impact is through a set of
journals agreeing to cite each other, that is, by exchanging citations. This
may be less coercive than self citations, but is nonetheless unprofessional
and distortionary. Both journal self citations and exchanged citations have
the effect of increasing a journal’s impact factor, which may be deceptive.
The paper analyses academic journal quality and research impact using quality
weighted citations versus total citations, based on the widely-used Thomson
Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations
Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality weighted citations. The new index
is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the Sciences and Social
Sciences, as well as 58 leading journals in Finance and Accounting, using
quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative
transformations of citations. It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional
measure to 2YIF and other well known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the
impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information
that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well
known RAMs for both the Sciences and Social Sciences, as well as in Finance
and Accounting. |
| Keywords: |
Research assessment measures, Impact factors, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, Quality weighted citations, Total citations, Index of citations quality, Journal rankings, Self, citations, Coercive citations, Exchanged citations |
| JEL: |
C10 C81 Y10 |
| Date: |
2015–01–01 |
| URL: |
http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ems:eureir:78067&r=sog |