The distribution of citations in the context of Journal Impact Factor

February 13, 2014

Nature editor Noah Gray Twittered a link to a 2003 Editorial in Nature Neuroscience.

The key takeaway is in the figure (which Noah also twittered).

Image

In 2003 the JIF for Nature Neuroscience was 15.14, for J Neuro 8.05 and for Brain Research 2.474. Nature itself was 30.98.

Plenty of people refer to the skew and the relative influence of a handful of very highly cited papers but it is interesting and more memorable to see in graphical form, isn’t it?

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The distribution of citations in the context of Journal Impact Factor”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    it would make more sense to plot it in a cumulative format instead

    Like

  2. mikka Says:

    So, in a nutshell, if you want to estimate the impact of a paper from the journal it’s published in, the worst estimator you could pick is the arithmetic mean of the impact of previously published papers.

    Like

  3. Anonymous Says:

    But even if you measure the median, the relative “rating” of the journals remains.

    Like

  4. Anonymous Says:

    So even if you use the median, the relative rating of the journals stilll stands.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: