| Title |
Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-012-0660-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Loet Leydesdorff |
| Abstract |
Journal impact factors (IFs) can be considered historically as the first attempt to normalize citation distributions by using averages over 2 years. However, it has been recognized that citation distributions vary among fields of science and that one needs to normalize for this. Furthermore, the mean-or any central-tendency statistics-is not a good representation of the citation distribution because these distributions are skewed. Important steps have been taken to solve these two problems during the last few years. First, one can normalize at the article level using the citing audience as the reference set. Second, one can use non-parametric statistics for testing the significance of differences among ratings. A proportion of most-highly cited papers (the top-10% or top-quartile) on the basis of fractional counting of the citations may provide an alternative to the current IF. This indicator is intuitively simple, allows for statistical testing, and accords with the state of the art. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 60% |
| Chile | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Israel | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 66 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Librarian | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 29 | 32% |
| Unknown | 4 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 25 | 27% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 5% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,172,306
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#1,264
of 2,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,468
of 156,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 156,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 51% of its contemporaries.