Comments on: Naughty Twins and the Impact of Journals http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/ What's Hot & What's Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:01:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Impact Factors — A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? « The Scholarly Kitchen http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-14666 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:53:30 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-14666 [...] way of getting around the apples to oranges problem is by seeking out cases of unethical multiple publication — identical (or nearly identical) articles published in multiple sources.  Another way is to [...]

]]> By: Bibliometria » Blog Archive » La primogenitura y la lengua de las gemelas de Mateo http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4454 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:22:14 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4454 [...] con mención de la publicación previa (como bien dice Philip Davis, de The Scholarly Kitchen, en Naughty Twins and the Impacto of Journals, “originally published in XXX”). Su mayor antigüedad y la mención en la otra revista [...]

]]> By: Stuart http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4388 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:21:33 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4388 Pretty alarming to think there are 4,532 duplicate papers in the system!

]]> By: Commentarius http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4384 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:46:50 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4384 I don’t see why this should be a surprise to anyone. It’s perfectly obvious that a “high impact” journal (whatever that is) is going to be read and cited more than a “low impact” journal. That’s the definition of impact. We hardly need a scholarly study to know that.

]]> By: Aravind Akella http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4376 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:45:15 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4376 Kent, Good analysis but I believe there is a lot of crowd mentality in citing articles with the result that only a single version of article gets cited most of the time. Overtime, at least some, authors see a reference cited in a particular context and just cite it in their own without bothering much to read the original.

]]> By: Kent Anderson http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4372 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:42:26 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4372 A long time ago, there was a study of citations to NEJM papers within the normal citation window (1-3 years) after the New York City newspaper strike in the late-1970s. Comparing a cohort of papers when the papers were running to a cohort when they weren’t publishing, the authors found a significant difference in overall citation. Less press coverage = less citation. It’s a reminder that we publish into a media environment, now probably moreso than ever, and that amplification creates awareness. Some journal brands translate better into amplification systems, and are seen by the media more often. This might explain some of what these researchers found.

You can’t cite what you don’t know about.

]]> By: Impact factors and citation rates: A natural experiment with unethical “twins” | materialsdave.com http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/08/26/impact-of-journals-measured/#comment-4371 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:32:06 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5646#comment-4371 [...] on human development when identical twins are raised in separate households.Philip Davis under The Scholarly Kitchen, Aug [...]

]]>