Academic journal: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
(got rid of at least *one* of those lousy "publications")
imported>Robert Badgett
(→‎Prestige: combined content from impact factor article)
Line 26: Line 26:
== Prestige ==
== Prestige ==


The prestige of an academic journal is established over time. It can reflect many factors, some but not all expressible quantitatively.  
The prestige of an academic journal is established over time. It can reflect many factors, some but not all expressible quantitatively. Prestige is usually measured with the impact factor but various alternatives are emerging.<ref name="titleCitations: Incitement or Excitement? � The Scholarly Kitchen">{{cite web |url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/04/09/citations-incitement-or-excitement/ |title=Citations: Incitement or Excitement? The Scholarly Kitchen |accessdate=2008-04-09 |author=Anderson, Kent |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008 |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref>
 
There are dominant journals in each academic discipline that receive the largest number of submissions and therefore can be most selective in choosing their content. Among academic historians in the United States, for example, the two dominant journals are the [[American Historical Review]] and the [[Journal of American History]], but there are dozens of other American peer-reviewed journals of history that specialize in specific time-periods, themes, or regions, and these may be considered of equally high quality in their specialty.
There are dominant journals in each academic discipline that receive the largest number of submissions and therefore can be most selective in choosing their content. Among academic historians in the United States, for example, the two dominant journals are the [[American Historical Review]] and the [[Journal of American History]], but there are dozens of other American peer-reviewed journals of history that specialize in specific time-periods, themes, or regions, and these may be considered of equally high quality in their specialty.


Line 37: Line 38:
===Eigenfactor===
===Eigenfactor===
The Eigenfactor has been proposed as an alternative to the impact factor (http://www.eigenfactor.org/).<ref>Bergstrom CT. (2007) [http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2007/may07/eigenfactor.cfm Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals] C&RL News 68(5)</ref><ref name="urlEigenfactor « The Scholarly Kitchen">{{cite web |url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/07/23/eigenfactor/ |title=Eigenfactor|author=Philip Davis |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=7/23/2008 |format= |work= |publisher=The Scholarly Kitchen |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=}}</ref>
The Eigenfactor has been proposed as an alternative to the impact factor (http://www.eigenfactor.org/).<ref>Bergstrom CT. (2007) [http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2007/may07/eigenfactor.cfm Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals] C&RL News 68(5)</ref><ref name="urlEigenfactor « The Scholarly Kitchen">{{cite web |url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/07/23/eigenfactor/ |title=Eigenfactor|author=Philip Davis |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=7/23/2008 |format= |work= |publisher=The Scholarly Kitchen |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=}}</ref>
===Faculty of 1000===
For [[Biology]] articles, [[Faculty of 1000]] is another ranking index for individual papers.


===H-index===
===H-index===
Line 43: Line 47:
===''q̅(J)''===
===''q̅(J)''===
Ranking journals by the average quality of its papers has been proposed.<ref name="pmid18301760">{{cite journal |author=Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA |title=Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information |journal=PLoS ONE |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=e1683 |year=2008 |pmid=18301760 |pmc=2244807 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0001683 |url=http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001683 |issn=}}</ref>
Ranking journals by the average quality of its papers has been proposed.<ref name="pmid18301760">{{cite journal |author=Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA |title=Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information |journal=PLoS ONE |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=e1683 |year=2008 |pmid=18301760 |pmc=2244807 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0001683 |url=http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001683 |issn=}}</ref>
===Pagerank and its variations===
Bollen et al proposed using the [[PageRank]] algorithm used by [[Google]] to distinguish the "quality" of citations and hence improve Impact Factor calculation. <ref>[http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.GL/0601030 Journal Status], Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Herbert Van de Sompel, May 17, 2006</ref><ref name="pmid17499388">{{cite journal |author=Dellavalle RP, Schilling LM, Rodriguez MA, Van de Sompel H, Bollen J |title=Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank |journal=J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=116–9 |year=2007 |month=July |pmid=17499388 |doi=10.1016/j.jaad.2007.03.005 |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0190-9622(07)00502-6 |issn=}}</ref>
    ISI Impact Factor          PageRank            Combined
  1 52.28 ANNU REV IMMUNOL    16.78 NATURE        51.97 NATURE
  2 37.65 ANNU REV BIOCHEM    16.39 J BIOL CHEM  48.78 SCIENCE
  3 36.83 PHYSIOL REV          16.38 SCIENCE      19.84 NEW ENGL J MED
  4 35.04 NAT REV MOL CELL BIO 14.49 PNAS          15.34 CELL
  5 34.83 NEW ENGL J MED        8.41 PHYS REV LETT 14.88 PNAS
  6 30.98 NATURE                5.76 CELL          10.62 J BIOL CHEM
  7 30.55 NAT MED              5.70 NEW ENGL J MED 8.49 JAMA
  8 29.78 SCIENCE              4.67 J AM CHEM SOC  7.78 LANCET
  9 28.18 NAT IMMUNOL          4.46 J IMMUNOL      7.56 NAT GENET
10 28.17 REV MOD PHYS          4.28 APPL PHYS LETT 6.53 NAT MED
The table shows the top 10 journals by [[Institute for Scientific Information|ISI]] Impact Factor, PageRank, and a modified system that combines the two (based on 2003 data). ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' are generally regarded as the most prestigious journals, and in the combined system they come out on top. That the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' is cited even more than ''Nature'' or ''Science'' might reflect the mix of review articles and original articles that it publishes. It is necessary to analyze the data for a journal in the light of a detailed knowledge of the journal literature.
===Online usage===
In health sciences, alternatives have been developed for predicting the impact of an article soon after publication without waiting for the two years needed to calculate an impact factor. These alternatives have included predicting the impact factor by using webhits<ref name="pmid15345629">{{cite journal |author=Perneger TV |title=Relation between online "hit counts" and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ |journal=BMJ |volume=329 |issue=7465 |pages=546-7 |year=2004 |pmid=15345629 |doi=10.1136/bmj.329.7465.546 |url=http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15345629 |issn=}}</ref> and other factors such as "indexing in numerous databases; number of authors; abstraction in synoptic journals; clinical relevance scores; number of cited references" and the nature of the article.<ref name="pmid18292132">{{cite journal |author=Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB |title=Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study |journal=BMJ |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=2008 |pmid=18292132 |doi=10.1136/bmj.39482.526713.BE |url=http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18292132 |issn=}}</ref>.


===Total citations / total articles===
===Total citations / total articles===

Revision as of 10:56, 3 September 2008

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable, developed Main Article is subject to a disclaimer.
In relation to the natural sciences, see Scientific journal

An academic journal is a regularly published, peer-reviewed periodical that publishes scholarship relating to an academic discipline. The purpose of such a journal is to provide a place for the introduction and scrutiny of new research, and is often a forum for the critique of existing research. This is most often manifested in the publication of original research articles (research findings), review articles, and book reviews.

The term "academic journal" applies to scholarly publications in all fields, and this article covers the aspects common to all academic fields. Scientific journals and journals in the quantitative social sciences vary somewhat in form and function from journals in the humanities and qualitative social sciences, and the specific aspects are discussed separately. The very similar American and British systems are being primarily discussed here--other regions are somewhat different.

Scholarly articles

In academia, submissions are generally unsolicited. Professional scholars generally submit an article to a journal; then, the editor (or co-editors) determines whether or not to reject the submission outright, often on grounds of not being appropriate to the subject of the journal. If the editor chooses to consider the article for publication, it is then subject to anonymous peer-review by other scholars of the editor's choosing. There are usually two reviewers; a third is sometimes asked if the two disagree. The opinions of these outside reviewers are used in the determination to publish the article, to return it to the author for revision, or to reject the article. (There are many variations on this process, discussed in the article on peer review). Even accepted articles are subject to further (often considerable) editing by the journal before publication. Because of this lengthy process, an accepted article will typically not appear in print until several months at the very least after its initial submission--several years is not unknown.

The process of peer review is generally considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars can only be expert in a limited area; they rely on peer-reviewed journals to provide reliable and credible research which they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in a published article, as many other scholars, and more generally the field of study itself, have relied upon that research.

Review Articles

For more information, see: review article.

Review articles, often called "reviews of progress," serve as a check on the research published in the journals. Unlike research articles, review articles are usually solicited from long-standing experts in the field. Some journals are entirely devoted to review articles, others contain a few each issue, but most do not publish review articles at all. Such reviews often cover the research for the preceding year, some for longer or shorter periods; some are devoted to very specific topics, some to general surveys. Some are enumerative, with intent to list all significant articles in a subject. Others are selective, including what they think is worth including. Yet others are evaluative, aiming to give a judgment of the state of progress in the field. Some are published in series, covering each year a complete subject field, or covering a number of specific fields over several years.

Unlike original research articles, book reviews tend to be solicited, and are sometimes planned years in advance. Authors are often paid a few hundred dollars for such reviews. Because of this, the standard definitions of open access do not require review articles to be open access, although many are. They are typically relied on by students beginning a study in a field, or for current awareness for those already in the field.

Due to concerns about inconsistent quality of review articles[1][2], the systematic review article which used technqiues from meta-analysis has been developed. The systematic review forms the core of evidence-based medicine.

Book reviews

Book reviews of scholarly books serve as a check on the research published in book form. Unlike articles, book reviews tend to be solicited. Journals typically have a separate book review editor who determines which new books should be reviewed and by whom. If an outside scholar accepts the book review editor's request to review a book, he or she generally receives a free copy of that book from the journal in exchange for a timely and publishable review. Publishers or authors send books to book review editors in the hope that their books will be reviewed. The length and depth of reviews vary considerably from journal to journal. The extent to which textbooks and other non-scholarly books are covered also varies from journal to journal.

Prestige

The prestige of an academic journal is established over time. It can reflect many factors, some but not all expressible quantitatively. Prestige is usually measured with the impact factor but various alternatives are emerging.[[#cite_note-titleCitations:_Incitement_or_Excitement?_�_The_Scholarly_Kitchen-3|[3]]]

There are dominant journals in each academic discipline that receive the largest number of submissions and therefore can be most selective in choosing their content. Among academic historians in the United States, for example, the two dominant journals are the American Historical Review and the Journal of American History, but there are dozens of other American peer-reviewed journals of history that specialize in specific time-periods, themes, or regions, and these may be considered of equally high quality in their specialty.

Impact factor

For more information, see: impact factor.

In the sciences, and the "hard" social sciences, impact factor is a convenient numerical measure, reflecting the number of later articles citing those articles already published in the journal. There are other possible quantitative factors, and there is question whether the number of citations is a best quantitative measure of prestige--See the discussion of impact factor. There is also a question of whether any quantitative factor can reflect true prestige. An excellent review on the pitfalls of impact factor is available [1]. In the Anglo-American humanities, there has not yet been a tradition (as currently exists in the sciences) of giving numerical prestige "values" to journals in schemes to quantify the relative importance of research (based on the number of references made to an article in other academic articles). Perhaps a key reason for this is the relative unimportance of academic journals in these field, as contrasted with the importance of academic monographs. Very recently, there have been some preliminary work towards determining the validity of such measurement [2], Faculty of 1000 [3].

Eigenfactor

The Eigenfactor has been proposed as an alternative to the impact factor (http://www.eigenfactor.org/).[4][5]

Faculty of 1000

For Biology articles, Faculty of 1000 is another ranking index for individual papers.

H-index

The H-index, also called the Hirsch index, is another alternative measure.[6] Is is available online at http://www.scimagojr.com/ and per the website is "an index that quantifies both the scientific productivity and the scientific impact of a journal (it is also applicable to scientists, countries...). The index is based on the set of the journal's most quoted papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications."[7]

q̅(J)

Ranking journals by the average quality of its papers has been proposed.[8]

Pagerank and its variations

Bollen et al proposed using the PageRank algorithm used by Google to distinguish the "quality" of citations and hence improve Impact Factor calculation. [9][10]

   ISI Impact Factor          PageRank            Combined
 1 52.28 ANNU REV IMMUNOL     16.78 NATURE        51.97 NATURE
 2 37.65 ANNU REV BIOCHEM     16.39 J BIOL CHEM   48.78 SCIENCE
 3 36.83 PHYSIOL REV          16.38 SCIENCE       19.84 NEW ENGL J MED
 4 35.04 NAT REV MOL CELL BIO 14.49 PNAS          15.34 CELL
 5 34.83 NEW ENGL J MED        8.41 PHYS REV LETT 14.88 PNAS
 6 30.98 NATURE                5.76 CELL          10.62 J BIOL CHEM
 7 30.55 NAT MED               5.70 NEW ENGL J MED 8.49 JAMA
 8 29.78 SCIENCE               4.67 J AM CHEM SOC  7.78 LANCET
 9 28.18 NAT IMMUNOL           4.46 J IMMUNOL      7.56 NAT GENET
10 28.17 REV MOD PHYS          4.28 APPL PHYS LETT 6.53 NAT MED

The table shows the top 10 journals by ISI Impact Factor, PageRank, and a modified system that combines the two (based on 2003 data). Nature and Science are generally regarded as the most prestigious journals, and in the combined system they come out on top. That the New England Journal of Medicine is cited even more than Nature or Science might reflect the mix of review articles and original articles that it publishes. It is necessary to analyze the data for a journal in the light of a detailed knowledge of the journal literature.

Online usage

In health sciences, alternatives have been developed for predicting the impact of an article soon after publication without waiting for the two years needed to calculate an impact factor. These alternatives have included predicting the impact factor by using webhits[11] and other factors such as "indexing in numerous databases; number of authors; abstraction in synoptic journals; clinical relevance scores; number of cited references" and the nature of the article.[12].

Total citations / total articles

Scopus, a product of Elsevier B.V. has introduced its Analytics which provides interactive charting of the total citations divided by the total number of articles for multiple journals and publication years.[13]

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), also based on data from Scopus, borrows from the PageRank concept to weight citations based on prestige of the citing journals.[14] According to its website, "is an indicator that expresses the number of connections that a journal receives through the citation of its documents divided between the total of documents published in the year selected by the publication, weighted according to the amount of incoming and outgoing connections of the sources." [15]

Prior work had explored using citation data to enhance information retrieval from biomedical journals.[16] SJR is available online at http://www.scimagojr.com/.

Financial operation

Academic journals in the humanities and social sciences are usually subsidized by universities or professional organizations, and do not exist to make a profit. However, they often accept advertisements as a way of off-setting production costs. It is standard practice for academic journals to charge libraries much higher subscription rates than individual subscribers pay. Editors of journals tend to have other professional responsibilities, most often as teaching professors. In the case of the very largest journals, there is sometimes paid staff to assist in the editing. The production of the journals is almost always done by paid staff from the publisher. Publishers in the subjects are often university presses; some of them specialize in such journals, such as the Oxford University Press.


New developments

In recent years, the Internet has revolutionized the production of, and access to, academic journals. Journal content is often available online via services subscribed to by academic libraries. Individual articles are indexed in databases by subject, and can be increasingly found in such databases as Google Scholar. Other specialized databases serve as platforms for disseminating journals (i.e. JSTOR or ScienceDirect). Some of the smallest and most specialized journals are prepared in-house by an academic department and published only on the internet--recently such publication has sometimes taken the form of a blog.

Open access

For more information, see: Open access.

There is currently a movement in higher education encouraging open access, either by self archiving, where the author places his paper in a repository where it can be searched for and read, or by publishing in an open access journal, which does not charge for subscriptions, being either subsidized or financed through author page charges. To date, open access has had a much greater effect on science journals than on those in the humanities.

References

  1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (1992). "A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction". JAMA 268 (2): 240–8. PMID 1535110[e]
  2. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP (2007). "Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature". JAMA 298 (21): 2517–26. DOI:10.1001/jama.298.21.2517. PMID 18056905. Research Blogging.
  3. [[#cite_ref-titleCitations:_Incitement_or_Excitement?_�_The_Scholarly_Kitchen_3-0|↑]] Anderson, Kent (2008). Citations: Incitement or Excitement? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
  4. Bergstrom CT. (2007) Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals C&RL News 68(5)
  5. Philip Davis (7/23/2008). Eigenfactor. The Scholarly Kitchen.
  6. Anderson K. The “h-index”: An Objective Mismeasure?. Retrieved on 2008-06-30.
  7. http://www.scimagojr.com/help.php
  8. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA (2008). "Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information". PLoS ONE 3 (2): e1683. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0001683. PMID 18301760. PMC 2244807. Research Blogging[e]
  9. Journal Status, Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Herbert Van de Sompel, May 17, 2006
  10. Dellavalle RP, Schilling LM, Rodriguez MA, Van de Sompel H, Bollen J (July 2007). "Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank". J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 57 (1): 116–9. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2007.03.005. PMID 17499388. Research Blogging.
  11. Perneger TV (2004). "Relation between online "hit counts" and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ". BMJ 329 (7465): 546-7. DOI:10.1136/bmj.329.7465.546. PMID 15345629. Research Blogging.
  12. Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2008). "Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study". BMJ. DOI:10.1136/bmj.39482.526713.BE. PMID 18292132. Research Blogging.
  13. Anonymous. Scopus Journal Analyzer. Elsevier B.V.. Retrieved on 2008-07-21.
  14. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008 Apr 11. PMID 18408168
  15. http://www.scimagojr.com/help.php
  16. Bernstam EV, Herskovic JR, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Aliferis CF, Sriram MG, Hersh WR. Using citation data to improve retrieval from MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Jan-Feb;13(1):96-105. Epub 2005 Oct 12. PMID 16221938

See also