Measuring Journal Performance
Measuring journal performance is important for the editor and publisher, not only to review the journal’s position but also to allow them to take decisions for its future development. When discussing the performance of my journal I prefer to emphasize:
A Usage statistics - this reflects readership and trends which tell me whether we are on the right track. Usage figures are also current;
B Citations to articles in the journal - to me it is important to know how the journal and the articles are being used in the science community. This tells me that we publish the right articles and also helps me establish scientific market trends;
C Author feedback - It is important that the authors are satisfied with the journal. Highly satisfied authors are loyal and also recommend to others to publish in my journal.
Please select A, B or C and explain your rationale.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
This Editors’ Forum focused on how best to emphasize journal performance. Some 93 editors participated, giving their views on the topic. With this summary of the results, which will also appear in the next issue of Editors’ Update, this forum is now closed.
More than 49% of respondents selected option B, although many of these also clearly acknowledged the potential pitfalls involved in citations statistics. Some comments for this choice included: “Option B gives editors (and authors) a good overview of how often, and in what context, the articles are used by other authors and journals,” and ”citations lead on to impact factor, which has become an important criterion for choice of a journal for submission of papers.”
In contrast, although still claiming article citation as the most important factor in measuring performance, many respondents conceded that this was due more to standard practice than to the accuracy of the measurements.
Citation engineering
Respondents in favor of option A, usage statistics (15%) included editors of young journals (less than 3 years in publication), or those working in specific industries, who do not have access to relevant citation data as yet. Still others who selected ‘A’ argued that high usage/citation statistics are not necessarily an indication of quality. “Many times, indexes measure the applicability of the topic rather than the real quality of a journal,” according to one editor.
Some respondents claimed even stronger positions. “A paper that has errors and/or erroneous interpretations may attract more attention than an important result that is ahead of its time,” one respondent said. “In addition, the competition for citations has created a trend of ‘citation engineering’, whereby all kinds of tricks are used to attract citations. Editors often come across reviewers who insist on citing their [own] papers. However, it is difficult to propose an alternative measure.” Several authors mentioned the trend of ‘artificial citation numbers’ as a serious problem.
Author satisfaction key
A small number of respondents (3%) stated that author satisfaction was key. “If authors are loyal and active, and new authors are attracted on a regular basis, this is the best sign of journal health… The fact that people are happy to do reviewing and that referees take their task very seriously is important as well.”
Around 11% of editors who responded said all three indicators were important. This was summed up by an editor who wrote: “Usage statistics are the most transparent approach with regards to the journal. Citation results must also be taken into account, and are generally reliable, but do require some care. Author feedback is also useful, but is more a reflection on the editor rather than the journal, and can be strongly influenced by side factors.”
April 6th, 2008 at 3:24 am
I would have thought that both aspects - readership (covered by A and B) and authors are important. Looking only at one seems to miss the point.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
B. While it is not a perfect measure, the other measures are less attractive. Usage is also imperectly correlated with impact, but I suspect is a less accurate indication. Just because a paper was downloaded does not mean it was read or used. A referenced paper has been both (or at least that would be the citing authors’ claim!). C is irrelevant: if the authors did not like the journal why send their paper there?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 am
“A” is where it’s at. Why not B? If I publish articles that my reviewers think are important and leading edge, these articles may not feed the main streams of research until some years have passed. If people want to publish topical articles, let them write for Atlantic Monthly. (Of course, if the journal gets consistently high citations for articles published 5 or 10 years ago, great!) As for C, authors are happy if they’re published and appreciated by a small circle of colleagues. That’s not enough to please an editor, and not enough to ensure good science.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
B
The first criterium is IF. This is unavoidable in a time harsh competition for research money
March 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
As the science is measured today, the most important thing is to be cited as much as possible; I would select in second place to have satisficed authors as well.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Although all three parameters are obviously relevant, I would find that B, the citation profile of the journal, special issues and specific papers is the #1 - after all, if papers are not cited or only poorly so, then it means that the community do not find them relevant or useful. If one gets the citation profile of a journal going in the right direction, the other parameters will also tend to fall in line behind this. Analogously,web downloads are also a very important reflection of a journal’s relevance.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am
All three parameters of a journal’s performance are relevant, B being the most important, followed by A and then by C.
Authors generally send their feedback only when something goes wrong; in this case, it is extremely important to take into account the criticism to try to improve the journal’s performance.
In my opinion, usage statistics give an estimate of the journal’s future impact factor since the downloading and reading of an article is a prerequisite for its citation.
I consider the number of citations not only as an overall indicator of a journal’s performance but also in relation to each specific article since it provides useful information on the readers’ interests and preferences.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:20 am
B
This can be counted from later publications anytime, thus should be treated as formal evaluation of the performance.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am
My choice is B since it is relatively easy to have a quantitative measurements of the importance of the articles.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
My option is to combine B and A with B 1st . Option C is strongly dependent on the Author’s feeling and opinion i.e. it is subjective.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am
My option ia A. Option C depends on each author and, as a result, it is subjective. Option B provides a standard and extended measure. However, indexes many times measure the applicabiliy of a topic rather the real quality of a journal.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
B is most important, as it tells us who is actually reading the journal and being influenced by it, as opposed to merely subscribing. A is easy to collect and is good as additional information.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
B
This is most used in my field
March 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Alternative B. This gives the editors (and authors) a good overview of how often, and in what context the articles are used by other authors and journals.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I would chose B. Only than A.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
B, very closely followed by A. C is not a problem, as feedback from authors comes to me direct and frequently. Citations from the journal are important for authors as well as for the journal’s exposure, and it is clear that the higher the usage, especially in downloads, the greater the likelihood of citations. But as we regard our function as being partly pedagogical, training especially new practitioners and researchers, sheer size of readership is important to us.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I would blend A with B, with a stronger weight on user satisfaction and a minor one for citations. The readers are the ultimate evaluators of the Journal’s quality and importance to the research work they are pursuing
March 17th, 2008 at 3:32 am
I would say B, number of citations, which leads on to impact factor - which has become an important criterion for choice of a journal for submssion of papers, according to what I hear from PhD students. Of course, the number of citations can be artefacts, e.g, from publication of an error, or from publishers’ requirements to cite their own papers that apparently occurs (shamefully) in some cases. However, one would hope that not all papers in a journal would have artifial citation numbers.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I believe is important and critical. It is reflective of the value of a given publication and how useful it is. If a given publication is cited often and in variety of journals, there is a high chance that it is a valuable contribution.
I am just concerned that statistics at times do not provide a complete picture of the significance of a given publication.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
C. Author feedback is most important becasue authors are the customers of our products, the Journal. A & B will provide information to measure the performance of C by using either A or B.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
A: Usage statistics is the most important to my journal.
The rationals are several:
- Scientific as well as non scientific usage of information is reflected. This is extremely important to society which is to a very large extent funding published research.
- If the statistics is made properly it will have a correlation to citations
- With a statistics also differentiate scientific and non scientific usage it would be of very high value.
The problem with A is the possibility of manipulation. But this is present for B as well.
Regards
Jerker
March 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
A B and C I think are improtant.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
To be honest all three are important. It is essential that we seek to obtain feedback from all sources to help us to steer future authors and previous authors, in so far as that may be possible. Certainly usage data are important but author satisfaction and of course user satisfaction are essential as well.
I hope that we can continue to find new ways to access information that will help us as editors in our on-going job.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Don Huisingh
March 16th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Author feedback - it is important that the authors are satisfied with the journal. Highly satisfied authors are loyal and also recommend to others to publish in my journal.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:43 am
My choice is B since I believe that people who cite articles from a journal like IS are familiar with it and have taken a look at these articles. I have not seen much author feedback; people are way too busy to provide that.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:26 am
My selection is B first and then A second; I do not believe that Author feedback will be provided by most.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
My choice is C. If authors are loyal and active, an new authors are attracted on a regular baisis this is the best sign of health. I have no confidence in the value of citation scores at all. The fact that people are happy to do reviewing and that referees take their task very seriously is important just as well. A journal is about as good as its referees are in my view.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
B Citations to articles in the journal - to me it is important to know how the journal and the articles are being used in the science community. This tells me that we publish the right articles and also helps me establish scientific market trends;
Right.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:46 am
B is more important than A and C. However, I have another question, some authors have good data, but they can not be published only because of the English level. How to help thse non-Enligh authors? For example, authors from China.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Citation to article (B) in the journal, I think, are probably the most useful and objective to be used.
A and c can be good to know, but not as valuable as B.
B. De Vivo
March 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
B Citations to articles in the journal - to me it is important to know how the journal and the articles are being used in the science community. This tells me that we publish the right articles and also helps me establish scientific market trends;
Sorry I do not understand what it is wanted. The rationale is given for B!!
March 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
B & C are most important.
Everything else being more or less equal, I have a penchant to give a green light to counter-intuitive and/or provocative findings. I also like to help young authors in their first steps.
Finally, I tend to favor papers with relevant clinical and/or public health applications.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Citations have become a very important measure
of performance/quality/importance. However, they
should be used with care for the following reasons:
1) A paper that has errors and/or erroneus
interpretation may attract more citations than an
important result that is ahead of its time and/or
requires an extra effort to be comprehended. 2) The
competition for citations, in particular among yound
scientists in their early stages of their career, has
created a trend of “citation engineering”, whereby
all kind of tricks are used in order to attract citations.
3) Editors often come across reviewers who insist on
citing their papers. One can list other problems
related to citations. However, having said that, it
is difficult to propose an alternative measure.
Therefore, in conclusion, citations should be used
as one of the measures of quality/importance of a
paper (at least as long as we don’t have better
measures). Further, papers that attract over a
certain period (say the first year after publication)
an exceptional number of citations, should be
recognized by the Editors-in-Chief and/or
the editorial office.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I believe B is the clear winner, as it is the most serious measure of quality. Personally, I mainly cite papers that I believe are of high quality, and I read far more papers than I cite; this means that an obvious quality filter is applied between A and B, so B is the better measure.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
As many Editors noted already, all the three factors are important and none can be excluded.
“A” is the most formal way to evaluate the journal success; this is good starting point for discussion provided that all the relevant data are analysed (submission statistics, review speed, publication time, downloads etc.).
“B” is the most general point, visible also for a wider community; using that, however, requires certain care - these days, number of citations does not always correlate with the scientific quality of artciles - thus, with the overall quality of journal. Consequently, it is more suitable for the journals with a wide scope.
“C” is more like a private factor - this reflects not only the technical efficiency of the manuscipt processing but also e.g. communication with the Editor; however, at the same time, the authors’ attitude will also reflect the quality of the services provided by the publisher (e.g. EES) - the authors are normally comparing among various publishers so the influence of the latter factor might be essential. These issue must be properly resolved when designing a questionnaire.
So, I conclude that “A” is the most transparent approach with regards to the journal itself; “C” is also useful but it is more suitable to evaluate the Editor rather than the Journal and can be strongly influenced by side factors; “B” must be also taken into account and is generally reliable yet requires some care - it is influenced also by the general state of the research (especially for highly topical journals).
For my journal, the order of preference is A - C - B.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Tough choice and not really necessary. A & B are equally important and I am sure that they are highly correlated. A can be measured by subscriptions plus downloads and are a good metric for current reputation of the journal. Additionally they are difficult to manipulate by authors. (Authors can require students to download their work but that can only have minimal impact on the numbers.) I am also sure that downloads are a leading indicator of future citations.
Citations are a true measure of an articles impact, but since it may take a year or more after an article is published to be sited (due to the writing, reviewing and publishing cycle for the citing article), there is a lag effect that is worrisome. Use if the Thompson citation index is the major citation tool that universities use in their journal evaluation process; however, Thompson uses only a limited number of journals in their analysis. (For example they include fewer than 20 marketing journals out of over 200 that are currently published in English in the world. It would be nice to include all journals in the field including none-English journals.) Additionally, the Thompson index is an average for the journal’s articles. If your journal publishes a high number of articles each year, the total citations are divided by the number of articles. It is hard to make a comparison with a journal with a lot fewer publications. (For example Journal A published 82 articles in the past two years and had a citation index of 4; Journal B published 164 articles and had a citation index of 1. Just looking at the indices one would believe that Journal A was four times more influential than Journal B; but by looking at the actual number of citations, one would conclude that Journal A was only twice as influential as Journal B. (I also believe that Thompson subtracts out self-citations; i.e., Journal A cited in Journal A. This is not fair to any journal especially to those at the top of any citation list where one would expect higher self-citations if the journal was truly a top journal.)
Author satisfaction is more a metric of the editor’s evaluation than the journal and reflects how submitted articles are driven through the review process. While I do get comments from authors, they are mostly positive (”Thank you for accepting my paper.” and not all to informative. I would rather have a periodic survey of authors of both accepted and rejected papers. To assure objectivity I as editor could include a link to the survey site in my final letter to the authors (rejections and acceptances) so authors could input their opinion. Elsevier could then send me quarterly reports of the survey results (with long term trend analyses).
Overall I would prefer a metric that combines the three:
Journal Performance = .4(A) + .4(B) + .2(C)
Did not mean to ramble on so, but my morning coffee must have stimulated my keyboard. Hope the comments are helpful.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
A is the most important because the discriminating readership would very quickly send a signal through usage statistics if a journal was not providing the quality of papers and reviews that they expected. However, absolute usage statistics may not be such a good measure as usage statistics compared with competitors in the same field. It would therefore be desirable to have some objective comparisons, in the same way as Thomson-ISI does for citations.
B is also helpful, particularly as the Thomson-ISI data provides objective comparisons across different fields, so it is apparent when a journal is advancing compared with competitors in the same field. However, one weakness is that there seems to be no safeguards against authors artificially inflating the citations data by “self reference” in contributions to a number of journals.
C is relatively unimportant for establishing a journal’s position. As long as their contributions are published efficiently in a timely fashion, authors are generally satisfied.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
In my opinion b is most relevant; in fact it selects the more important features of a and c.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I would say B, C and then A. The biggest challenge is to ensure that items of quality valued by the community are published. We deal with a diverse topic and must ensure that we select the best. Though citations are not an absolute, they are significant. Author satisfaction is importnat as it demonstrates we have the mechanics right. I am not sure about readership, given the varied mechanisms of access. I’d possible have given downoads more weight, but the trend is still dramatically upwards, so I am not convinced that there is anything useful to learn other than that access is changing. An interjournal comparison for the journals in our area might be intersting across elements of readership - we essentially get it for the other two.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Its B. This tells me that the articles selected are useful to others in the research community, and ultimately the readership because we are providing information that informs opinion. This is not to say tha the others are not important, but without B we are not helping.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:25 am
For my journal, it is definitely A. As a newer journal with a constituency and readership that is at least ½ industrial and does not need to publish to further their careers, usage is definitely key. Given our readership demographics, citations and impact factor are low, and therefore, not highly informative. Usage and subscription statistics have been our most informative measures. We also are working very hard on reader surveys as well, but that is a work in progress. Author feedback is helpful, but still doesn’t help us determine if we are reaching our target audience’s needs like usage statistics. Obviously, as the journal matures, we can hope that citations will become a more informative measure.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:39 am
I endorse item A. The measure of a journal’s success is how much people actually read and use it. B and C are equally important in principle, but I think quantification of citations is severely flawed to the point of not being worth very much, and trying to measure author satisfaction is a dicey business when most authors will probably not even respond to surveys.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I select A as the most important measurement.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:58 am
As many have observed, all three..A, B, and C are important criteria. I would imagine that journals in different fields, at different levels, would identify different criteria as more/most important. A an B are surely important in general. However, if author satisfaction is low/declining, the quality of the work will eventully suffer, and drag down measures A and B with it.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:41 am
All are important considerations, but B impact factors must be the most important.
How impact factors are to be measured is another matter. In an applied field, it is just not citations in impact in Thompson ISI journals that are important, but how the work is recognized in application. The Hersch index using other data bases is useful to our journal.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Usage statistics
Citation index, although a valuable tool, is somewhat biased by the weight of the readership in a particular field. If perceive that specialized fields may be disadvantaged by the criteria usde in the scoring system. If the scientific or medical community involved in a particular domain of medicine or science is demographically marginal, the chances of a peer-reviewed journal, related to that domain, to obtain a high impact factor is low despite the high quality paper published.
The question is then are there adequate correcting factors to account for this bias?
Citations to articles
This is a critical factor in assessing the utility, or lack of it, of the articles published in our Journal. Being in the biomedical field, it drives the Editorial Board to be aware of state-of-the-art technology and of new trends in the diagnostic field.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:19 am
B - Although I would place significant value on all 3 criteria, citations or impact factors are highly regarded in the academic community. Some academic institutions use a journal’s impact factor to decide whether a junior faculty member’s publications “count” for their tenure application. I do not agree with this policy, as it is only one view of the journal’s readership and its overall impact on the scientific community. However, this is the system that is currently in-place in our community.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
B and C: most important is B; potential authors will more and more look at the impact factors and make a decision. However, a happy author is also important.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I would say that B, citations, is the most important. C is useful to me personallyand anecdotally, but it is not objective. In mathematics, we have efficient preprint archives, so that much of the “usage'’ of a paper has already occurred by the time the paper is accepted or appear in print.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
B- Citations are key indicators and the basis of the impact factor which is now so highly quoted. However no Editor can ignore C - authors’ comments and I always value these as an indicator.
Hope that this is helpful.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Both A & B are important measurement of journal performance.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
once again, I would select all of them. Statistics provide one measure of impact; citations are commonly used for impact analysis; author feedback is essential for our good standing and reputation in the community
ellen
March 13th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I am split between A and B
Both tell me what is important about our Journal — possibly A more than B
March 13th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
B is my criterion. Authors look to impact factor to determine the best journal to which they submit their work. Promotion and tenure committees look to impact factor to assess the candidate. I use various strategies to maintain and hopefully raise the impact factor of my journal, and if it declines I reexamine our procedures.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
All three are measures of performance - they each measure something different, so one can’t compare them. But the question asks ” When discussing the performance of my journal I prefer to emphasize: A, B or C”. The fact is, I don’t prefer to emphasise any one of these. Just as I don’t emphasise measuring a material’s performance by its electrical conductivity, its toughness or its colour.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
If I must select only one it is “A”. This defines our audience.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
While there is no reason for an editor to have only one strategy, if it did come to a single type of response, for most situations where I’m dealing with authors I would choose A. An author’s main concern is that his/her paper should attract attention. Thus, data on down-loads gives vital early data for prospective contributors.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I choose B. Usage by other authors is the key to whether the submittal, review, and publishing processes are producing a useful product.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Option B
The citation index and impact factors are not the perfect tools to evaluate scientific journals and to promote their strategy, but I don’t see any other better system. In my opinion options A and C are marginal.
Of course option B is suitable of improvements and I have the impression that the process of improving is in progress.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I go for B as that is the essence of the value of a journal. It would be very helpful to know which topics are the the most or least quoted. A and C are also of importance.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
A Usage statistics are extremely important, as they tell how readers respond to the journal. B Citations to articles will come only if A is satisfactory. And a high B can never an aim on its own as high B articles need not correspond to editorial policy. And C is a quality indicator of a different nature, important but satisfied authors do not necessarily produce a high quality journal.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Option B
Despite the obvious failings of the citation index and impact factors, which also appear to have less significance to Far Eastern authors, they are the best indicators available of the standing and reputation of a journal. This is an important factor in maintaining a good supply of first-class papers from internationally recognised experts.
This does not mean that items A and C do not have some significance and can be ignored
March 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
A seems the best, even if B must be used with care.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I believe B is the most important as this determines not only readership but validation of the report. A is also very important. C is the least important, sometimes authors may be disgruntled and blame the journal when it may be a reviewer.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
B is very important.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
While all three have their merits and I consider them all important, having to select only one, I choose A. For me this is the bottom line. Current usage figures indicate acceptance and support. Furthermore for a young journal (only 3 years in publication) usage is critical and indexing has not been applied for yet.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
A and B are both important. (A) measures the effectiveness of the journal in the community of readers. (B) Indicates the usefulness of the journal to the science community.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I prefer a combination of B and C. Citations may have a high variance and have some peaks in case a paper on a hot topic is published. The author feedback gives some indications on the perception of the journal.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Citation is indeed is the best reflection- a kind of true measure for quality, and indeed it is one of the most accepted quality parameter to assess any journal.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
For me, B is the most important of the three. It tells us not only that the journal is being read; but also that the articles are seen as valuable to the research community. Author feedback (C) is useful, but for different reasons.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Usage of the journal (A) is the most important measure of performance, since it is current and measures the effectiveness of the journal in the community of readers. (B) is useful, but it can be artificially influenced by review articles and also, it is a measure that is at least two years behind the current date. (B) is used by librarians and those who influence librarians as an easy means of measurement, for purposes of making buying decisions. However, my feeling is that it should only be used along with other means, when looking at overall performance. At the bottom line, effectiveness also has to have a financial aspect. After all, the journal will not succeed unless it does so in the marketplace.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The research community uses B as it is perceived as representing the definitive data on the impacy of research. However, I prefer analysis methods which measure impact over time - the H-index or some relation.
However, I think usage data A is very important for editors and publishers - how many and who reads our work. For industry facing journals then often information is taken and applied within orgnsations, though never formally citied. It should be more important for the ‘assessing’ research community as well, as it provides a more rounded asessment of a journal’s impact over just citations.
Whilst I think C can be useful - it is not definitive in the way the data above is in A and B
March 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Citations to articles (B) has become the way of ranking journals. No matter the limitations, its simplicity means that researchers and authors are talking “impact factors.” Others who judge on the impact factor basis include librarians, research administrators, directors, academic deans, etc. In some regions, authors are given perks to publish in journals with high impact factors. The misleading part of “impact factors” is that they discriminate against journals that don’t publish reviews or tutorials. An improvement could be made if there were an impact factor for research articles.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
B
March 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Usage statistics is much better if it gives you a good early/current picture on readership: this could allow quick changes if needed . Citations are definitively the best but I think is may a bit too late. Authors feedback is unreliable.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
B : is a traditional figure of merit of the journal. Gives quantitative appreciation
C : important for qualitative appreciation
A : I do not fully understand its content and typical usage
March 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
B is most important as it determines the journal’s reputation in the science community and whether researchers submit good papers to the journal. However, A and C certainly also have some significance. For example, timely publication may also influence whether an author submits good work to a journal.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Usage statistics, in this age of electronic journals, are probably not as useful as they were in the past, when people would browse issues in paper form at their library (or from their personal subscriptions). This makes…
Citations to articles all the more important, because it is these citations that will draw readers. Finally…
Author feedback is useful in a separate mode, for the reasons stated. Without satisfied authors, a journal’s quality will descend into grey-literature status.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
A - If usage statistics can accurately reflect how many scientists are currently reading your journal, then this measure will be the most important. If lots scientists are reading in your journal, they are likely to cite those articles and they are likely to come to your journal to publish their own work on the same topics. I think B and C do provide good information, but at a considerable delay in time from the present.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
B CITATIONS TO ARTICLES (as opposed to impact factors). It is the most objective index and gives a good indication as to whether published papers are being read and are having an impact on the relevant literatures. They are far more useful than impact factors, which some editors manipulate through spurious editorials that cite recently published papers in their journal.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
A … of course, all three are useful. Option A is simple and it measures voluntary actions of readers or their librarians. Option B is not as good because there is a lot of gratuitous citation that has nothing to do with the message of the paper cited, and often literature reviews are not comprhensive. Option C is far too sporadic, and biased to authors who like to feel important and do surveys rather than science.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I prefer B. Mostly because a higher impact factor attracts authors who, rightly or not, are urged by their Dept. Heads and granting agencies to select journals on that basis.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
B (a bit of C too, though to a much lower extent). Citations contribute to the IF and give an immediate idea of both the quality and of the attention papers can grab.
Francesco Visioli
Phamacol Res
March 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Citations is the most accurate measurement of papers and of a journal, but not ideal. Option A is extremely inaccurate and C is a function of many different performance and satisaction parameters.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
B. It is used somewhere for avaluation of research performande by individuals and institutions and so authors are boceming more and more concern about impact factor. The highest the impact factor, more authors willing to publish there
February 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
All 3 are important factors. However B (and also A) give an indication of performance.
However, as others also pointed out, it is not easy to compute, and also can be misleading (e.g. lag time of recognition, more pronounced in certain disciplines–e.g. maths). Therefore care should be exercised in their interpretation.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
B, because it is an objective instrument for measuring journal performance and however they influence other metrics like Impact factor and h-factor.
Hence it is a clear signal of scientific community consideration.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
C will always be high for authors whose papers were published in the journal - they are happy and will say so.
B is the one I support but it is easy to manipulate B. Also, journals with a large backlog B will be negatively affected.
It is also easy to manipulate A, just ask your students to download the paper.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:08 am
I think both A and B are important. What is more important is how we compute these statistics. For instance, in mathematics good papers have an effect over a long period, and citations will show this only after 10-15 years (AND NOT THREE!!!).
February 17th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I support the B; while there cannot be one simple scale to measure this, it is indeed important to know how the journal and the articles are being used in the science community. This broadly tells me that we publish the right articles.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
B Citations to articles in the journal - to me it is important to know how the journal and the articles are being used in the science community. Exhaustive citations are a prerequisite for a good quality paper and are relevant for impact factor and other metrics like h-factor.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
B:
In the current science community, the number of citation is accepted as the most critical factor in evaluation the performace of researchers and journals. And most researchers are very sensitive to this number. Therefore, B should be most emphasized.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:14 am
I select B (Citations to articles) and I believe that the impact factor is very important when authors thinking to submit their papers. Authors do hope their papers would be refered after published in the journal.