Scientometrics (SCIENTOMETRICS)

Publisher: Akadémiai Kiadó

Journal description

Scientometrics aims at publishing original studies short communications preliminary reports review papers letters to the editor and book reviews on scientometrics. The topics covered are results of research concerned with the quantitative features and characteristics of science. Emphasis is placed on investigations in which the development and mechanism of science are studied by means of (statistical) mathematical methods. The Journal also provides the reader with important up-to-date information about international meetings and events in scientometrics and related fields. Appropriate bibliographic compilations are published as a separate section. Due to its fully interdisciplinary character Scientometrics is indispensable to research workers and research administrators throughout the world. It provides valuable assistance to librarians and documentalists in central scientific agencies ministries research institutes and laboratories. Scientometrics includes the Journal of Research Communication Studies. Consequently its aims and scope cover that of the latter namely to bring the results of research investigations together in one place in such a form that they will be of use not only to the investigators themselves but also to the entrepreneurs and research workers who form the object of these studies.

Current impact factor: 2.27

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 2.274
2012 Impact Factor 2.133
2011 Impact Factor 1.966
2010 Impact Factor 1.905
2009 Impact Factor 2.167
2008 Impact Factor 2.328
2007 Impact Factor 1.472
2006 Impact Factor 1.363
2005 Impact Factor 1.738
2004 Impact Factor 1.12
2003 Impact Factor 1.251
2002 Impact Factor 0.855
2001 Impact Factor 0.676
2000 Impact Factor 0.66
1999 Impact Factor 0.931
1998 Impact Factor 0.71
1997 Impact Factor 0.691
1996 Impact Factor 0.582
1995 Impact Factor 0.444
1994 Impact Factor 0.593
1993 Impact Factor 0.519
1992 Impact Factor 0.634

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 2.21
Cited half-life 6.50
Immediacy index 0.45
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 0.60
Website Scientometrics website
Other titles Scientometrics (Online)
ISSN 0138-9130
OCLC 45496762
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Akadémiai Kiadó

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors own final version only can be archived
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • On author's personal website or institutional repository or any repository mandated by Author's funding body
    • Published source must be acknowledged
    • Must state that the file is not the final published version of the paper
    • Must link to publisher version(http://dx.doi.org/[DOI of the Article without brackets])
    • Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Scientometrics 01/2016;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research funding plays a key role in current science, thus it has become an aggregative interesting level in scientometric analysis. In this work, we try to explore the funding ratios of 21 major countries/territories in social science based on 813,809 research articles collected from the Web of Science and indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index covering the period from 2009 to 2013. The results show that the funding ratios of sample countries/territories in social science are far below that in natural science and some specific subjects (chemistry, engineering, physics, neurosciences). However, there is a positive correlation between them. The funding ratios of People’s Republic of China, Sweden and Japan rank the top 3 (over 30 %). Generally, the funding ratios of the top 1 % and top 10 % highly cited articles are higher than those of the rest of articles, and for most cases, the high funding ratio of all articles is related to the high funding ratio of the highly cited articles.
    Scientometrics 09/2015; 104(3). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1633-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Technology Centres (TCs) are non-profit organisations created to contribute to the improvement of the productive sector, providing RTD support, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Given TCs’ main function, most authors present an industrial perspective of their performance. However, the bibliometric techniques can offer not only an overview of these centres, but also additional information about their features: the evolution of their publications, the degree of national and international collaboration, the Spanish institutional sectors and the main disciplines involved, the regional differences and their connections. In this article, Spanish TCs’ documents downloaded from the Web of Science (2008–2012) are analysed, along with other indicators that can characterise these centres. The results show that national collaboration is important for TCs and even more when those links are local. This is in line with that stated by other authors, considering that geographical proximity is essential for knowledge transfer. Regarding the Spanish institutional sectors, the strongest relations are established with universities. For their part, firms have low participation in publications, although they show an upward trend over the years. Nevertheless, TCs’ documents are mainly issued on industrial related topics, in agreement with their primary mission as promoters of firms’ innovation. Finally, as expected, differences between regions’ performance are seen, explained in part by disparities between regional systems. Notwithstanding, top producers establish connections with regions without TCs, mainly collaborating in documents related to engineering, medicine and environmental topics.
    Scientometrics 09/2015; 104(3). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1631-5
  • Scientometrics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1702-7
  • Scientometrics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1714-3
  • Scientometrics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1724-1
  • Scientometrics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1711-6
  • Scientometrics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1658-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the scientific publication world, there are an increasing number of open access (OA) journals. Many OA journals are financed by the article processing charges (APCs) that they charge authors. There is considerable interest in the funding source of such APCs. In 255 health and life sciences OA journals that charge APCs (APC OA journals) and 183 health and life sciences OA journals that do not charge APCs (free OA journals) that are indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, this study uses a bibliometric method to examine the relationship between two journal characteristics during 2009–2013: APCs and the percentage of published articles based on work that is supported by grants (grant-funded articles). According to the data collected, the percentage of grant-funded articles increases as the associated APCs increase. Average APCs of APC OA journals are higher in Europe and North America than elsewhere. The study also investigated the top ten countries in the number of scientific publications in the OA journals investigated. All ten countries had lower percentages of grant-funded articles in free OA journals than in APC OA and subscription journals. Of the ten countries, six in Europe and North America have higher percentages of grant-funded articles in APC OA journals than in subscription journals. The other four countries that have lower percentages of grant-funded articles in APC OA journals than in subscription journals are in Asia and South America, which are places where APC OA journals have low average APCs.
    Scientometrics 08/2015; 104(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1624-4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous researchers of citation analysis often analyze patent data of a single authority because of the availability of the data and the simplicity of analysis. Patent analysis, on the other hand, is used not only for filing and litigation, but also for technology trend analysis. However, global technology trends cannot be understood only with the analysis of patent data issued by a single authority. In this paper, we propose the use of patents from multiple authorities and discuss the effect of bundling patent family information. We investigate the effect of patent families with cases from automobile drivetrain technology. Based on the results, we conclude that the use of multiple authorities’ patent data bundled with the patent family information can significantly improve the coverage and practicability of patent citation analysis.
    Scientometrics 08/2015; 104(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1626-2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper aims to perform a detailed scientometric and text-based analysis of Computer Science (CS) research output of the 100 most productive institutions in India and in the world. The analytical characterization is based on research output data indexed in Scopus during the last 25 years period (1989-2013). Our computational analysis involves a two-dimensional approach involving the standard scientometric methodology and text-based analysis. The scientometric characterization aims to assess CS domain research output in leading Indian institutions vis-à-vis the leading world institutions and to bring out the similarities and differences among them. It involves analysis along traditional scientometric indicators such as total output, citation-based impact assessment, co-authorship patterns, international collaboration levels etc. The text-based characterization aims to identify the key research themes and their temporal trends for the two sets. The key contribution of the experimental work is that it’s an analytical characterization of its kind, which identifies characteristic similarities and differences in CS research landscape of Indian institutions vis-à-vis world institutions.
    Scientometrics 08/2015; 104(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1612-8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper intends to describe the population evolution of a scientific information web service during 2011-2012. Quarterly samples from December 2011 to December 2012 were extracted from Google Scholar Citations to analyse the number of members, distribution of their bibliometric indicators, positions, institutional and country affiliations and the labels to describe their scientific activity. Results show that most of the users are young researchers, with a starting scientific career and mainly from disciplines related to information sciences and technologies. Another important result is that this service is settled by waves emanating from specific institutions and countries. This work concludes that this academic social network presents some biases in the population distribution that does not make it representative of the real scientific population.
    Scientometrics 07/2015; 104(1). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a formal study on manuscript quality control in peer review. Within this analysis, a biased editor is defined operationally as an editor that exerts a higher (lower) level of quality control. Here we show that if the editor is more biased than the manuscript’s author then the author undertakes the type of revision that the editor prefers instead of following his or her own opinion. Moreover, authors with a strong belief about the required level of quality control will be very motivated under editors who agree with them. By contrast, when authors do not undertake the revision type that the editor prefers, they will be very demotivated under editors that exert a different level of quality control and more so as the associate editor is more biased. The effects of editors’ bias on authors’ satisfaction and motivation cause sorting in the authors who submit manuscripts to scholarly journals, and therefore, match authors and journals with similar quality standards. It will decrease the demotivating effect that editors’ bias had on some authors, so that bias becomes more effective at the peer review stage. Moreover, some journals will be forced to lower the quality standards in order to be able to compete with journals of more biased editors. This paper also shows that, under fairly weak conditions, it is optimal for the Editor-in-Chief to assign manuscripts to an editor that exerts a quality control higher than the journal’s standard, against the competing journal whose editor holds the journal’s standard.
    Scientometrics 07/2015; 104(1). DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x