↓ Skip to main content

Neophilia ranking of scientific journals

Overview of attention for article published in Scientometrics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Neophilia ranking of scientific journals
Published in
Scientometrics, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-2157-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikko Packalen, Jay Bhattacharya

Abstract

The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper (citations)-these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical papers dating back to 1946. In addition, we compare our neophilia ranking to citation-based (impact factor) rankings; this comparison shows that the two ranking approaches are distinct. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue novel science, scientists underinvest in innovative work because of a coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the coordination problem by increasing scientists' incentives to pursue innovative work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Librarian 4 9%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 26%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 14%
Psychology 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,194,102
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#835
of 2,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,346
of 315,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#23
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,686 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.