Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations

Loet Leydesdorff

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, vol. 59, issue 2, 278-287

Abstract: Aging of publications, percentage of self‐citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non‐Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into “transdisciplinary” Mode‐2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An “externally cited impact factor” can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non‐ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (55)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20743

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jamist:v:59:y:2008:i:2:p:278-287

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2890

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from Association for Information Science & Technology
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().