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

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Response to Hartley's comments on "Inaccuracies in titles on bibliometrics in biomedical journals"We thank Dr. Hartley for his comments (Hartley 2015) and the opportunity to clarify a number of points from our work.We would like to correct two inaccuracies in Dr. Hartley’s letter. First, our work does not analyse “titles of articles published in bibliometric journals”, but “titles of articles on bibliometrics published in biomedical journals”. Secondly, the surname of the second author is not Mantalt, but Montalt.We acknowledge that the term “inaccuracy” may not be the most appropriate to encompass some of the categories included in our analysis. We also acknowledge that, as Dr. Hartley points out, titles vary in length, format and purpose, and some formats are more popular than others in certain disciplines.Nevertheless, we firmly believe that the language used in the titles of articles in biomedical journals should be precise and accurate, and should avoid the types of ambiguity and ...
    Scientometrics 04/2015; 103(1). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1504-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The features of science and technology (S&T) systems change over time. Simultaneously, at an individual level, the characteristics of actors in these systems also change concomitantly. In this study, the characteristics of doctorates in a changing S&T system are analyzed. This is performed by a series of cluster analyses on doctorates—with the goal of identifying shifting profiles—in strategic periods spanning three decades, which represents milestones in an evolving S&T system. A series of archetypal profiles of doctorates are identified, including changes to the relative weights of each of them, along with a pattern of alternating convergence and divergence over time on the characteristics of these doctorates.
    Scientometrics 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1558-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Forward citations are widely recognized as a useful measure of the impact of patents upon subsequent technological developments. However, an inherent characteristic of forward citations is that they take time to accumulate. This makes them valuable for retrospective impact evaluations, but less helpful for prospective forecasting exercises. To overcome this, it would be desirable to have indicators that forecast future citations at the time a patent is issued. In this paper, we outline one such indicator, based on the size of the inventor teams associated with patents. We demonstrate that, on average, patents with eight or more co-inventors are cited significantly more frequently in their first 5 years than peer patents with fewer inventors. This result holds true across technologies, assignee type, citation source (examiner versus applicant), and after self-citations are accounted for. We hypothesize that inventor team size may be a reflection of the amount of resources committed by an organization to a given innovation, with more researchers attached to innovations regarded as having particular promise or value.
    Scientometrics 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1550-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this position paper, we comment on various approaches to the delineation of scientific fields or domains, a typical prerequisite for a wide class of bibliometric studies. There is growing evidence that this meso-level, between micro targets of typical IR and large disciplines handled by macro-level bibliometric studies, takes full advantage of hybrid approaches. Firstly, delineation tasks gain to combine the a priori thinking of traditional IR, which typically involves clearly targeted expectations, and the a posteriori thinking of bibliometric mapping, where the decisions are built on external structuring of the domain in a wider context. The combination of the two ways of thought is far from new, with IR increasingly building on bibliometric networks for query expansion, and bibliometrics building on IR for evaluating and refining its outcomes. Secondly, delineation benefits from the multi-network perspective, which gives different representations of the scientific topics, usually all the more converging than the objects are dense and well separated. Focusing on two basic networks—words and citations—various sequences or combinations of operations are discussed. Bibliometrics and IR, especially when properly combined in multi-network approaches, provide an efficient toolbox for studies of domains delimitation. It should be recalled however that the context of such studies is often loaded with policy stakes that ask for cautious supervision and consultation processes.
    Scientometrics 03/2015; 102(3). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1482-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The research streams of transition economies and emerging markets have some common ground, but yet differ. The goal of this study is to provide a better understanding of the commonalities and differences regarding trends and topics of this cross-disciplinary research area. We employ the novel method of topic models on a corpus of nearly 6,000 articles in more than 600 journals from 1995 to 2012 to identify 25 topics and analyze their trends and use across scope (transition or emerging), disciplines (business or economics) and geography (countries or regions).
    Scientometrics 03/2015; 102(3):2107-2130. DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1513-2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The measurement of the research output of the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is problematic, due to the multi-product nature of their teaching and research activities. This study analyses the difficulties related to the measurement of the research output of the HEI and proposes a simple overall indicator which incorporates quantitative and qualitative aspects to permit the decomposition of the influence of the two factors. On the basis of this indicator homogeneous comparisons are made of the relative research output of the countries of the European Union and its evolution during the period 1996–2010.
    Scientometrics 03/2015; 102(3). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1509-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe ongoing research where the aim is to apply recent results from the research field of information fusion to bibliometric analysis and information retrieval. We highlight the importance of ‘uncertainty’ within information fusion and argue that this concept is crucial also for bibliometrics and information retrieval. More specifically, we elaborate on three research strategies related to uncertainty: uncertainty management methods, explanation of uncertainty and visualization of uncertainty. We exemplify our strategies to the classical problem of author name disambiguation where we show how uncertainty can be modeled explained and visualized using information fusion. We show how an information seeker can benefit from tracing increases/decreases of uncertainty in the reasoning process. We also present how such changes can be explained for the information seeker through visualization techniques, which are employed to highlight the complexity involved in the process of modeling and managing uncertainty in bibliometric analysis. Finally we argue that a further integration of information fusion approaches in the research area of bibliometrics and information retrieval may results in new and fruitful venues of research.
    Scientometrics 03/2015; 102(3):2255–2274.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently an increasingly controversial discussion about the concepts of usage metrics and altmetrics got going at conferences and meetings in our field. While for a small group both concepts are clearly different, a large part of the community tends to regard usage metrics as a subset of altmetrics.From our point of view this use of terminology is not appropriate, and can easily lead to unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings reflected in a distorted scientific communication.In what follows we will argue why a distinction should be made between the two terms ‘usage metrics’ and ‘altmetrics’.The main reason is of historical nature. Usage metrics have already been around much longer than altmetrics. In fact, usage metrics are even older than citation metrics, because librarians have been tracking usage since the beginning of their profession, ranging from basic user surveys to the usage tracking of physical journal issues and monographs to library loan statistics to the sophisticated ...
    Scientometrics 03/2015; 102(3). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1472-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dear Sir,We welcome the comments by Haunschild and Bornmann (2014) on the beta release of the Nature Index (natureindex.com). Nature Publishing Group (NPG) actively seeks constructive feedback from the researcher community we serve, and our aim is to iterate and improve the Nature Index in response to such feedback.Currently, the Nature Index is a database that tracks the affiliations of original research articles published in 68 natural science journals independently selected by active scientists as the journals in which they would most like to publish their best research (Campbell and Grayson 2014). A 12-month rolling window of data is organized and made available under a Creative Commons license at natureindex.com. The Nature Index provides absolute counts of high-quality publication productivity at the institutional and national level, and as such is one indicator of high-quality research output across the globe.NPG does not intend the Nature Index to be a ranking and have quite de ...
    Scientometrics 02/2015; 102(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1516-z
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the early 1970s, scholars have contributed their talent and intellect towards the establishment of the discipline and the education of the next generation of hospitality and tourism professionals. Espousing the popular notion “publish or perish”, numerous scholars have explored the discipline’s research foundations from an array of different perspectives, such as the ranking and rating of scholars, journal publications and institutions. This novel empirical endeavor aims to enrich the existing intellectual capital by investigating the publication strategies of forty-four prolific hospitality and tourism scholars, by focusing on three distinctive thematic areas, namely, a journal’s impact factor and citations, authorship specifics, and research themes. Findings are of interest to both current and future scholars in their quest for academic excellence and contributions, which further enhance the hospitality and tourism discipline.
    Scientometrics 02/2015; 102(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1431-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cycles that cross two or more boundaries between disciplines in the co-authorship graph for all of science are used to set upper limits on the number of co-authored papers required to cross 15 disciplines or subdisciplines ranging from macroeconomics to neurology. The upper limits obtained range from one (discrete mathematics, macroeconomics and nuclear physics) to six (neuroscience). The 15 disciplines or subdisciplines examined form a “small world” with an average separation of only 2.0 co-authorship links. It is conjectured that the high-productivity, high average degree centers of all scientific disciplines form a small world, and therefore that the diameter of the co-authorship graph of all of science is only slightly larger than the average diameter of the co-authorship graphs of its subdisciplines.
    Scientometrics 02/2015; 102(2). DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1468-3