A discussion of the research performance evaluation in building and construction management discipline : the journal impact factors and SCI-index journals

The trend of diminished funding, demands for greater efficiency and higher public accountability have led to a rapid expansion of interest in the bibliometric assessment of research performance of universities. A pilot research is conducted to provide a preliminary overview of the research performance of the building and construction schools or departments through the analysis of bibliometric indicators including the journal impact factor (JIF) published by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The suitability of bibliometric evaluation approaches as a measure of research quality in building and construction management research field is discussed.

From epistemic origins to journal impact factors: what do citations tell us?

Urquhart, C. (2006). From epistemic origins to journal impact factors: what do citations tell us? International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(1), 1-2.

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

Previous studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study’s aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate. We conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures. Men show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable ‘participation in a structured doctoral study program’. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables ‘final grade’ and ‘age’: An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication productivity. Finally, joint publication activities between the graduate and his/her academic supervisor result in significantly higher IFs (3.64 ± 3.03 vs. 2.84 ± 2.25, p = 0.007, d = 0.28). The study’s results support the assumption about women’s underrepresentation in science as well as the relevance of structured doctoral study programs for preparing and recruiting young academics in medicine for scientific careers. Promoting women and further development of structured doctoral study programs are highly recommended.

Choosing the right journal for your systematic review

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

VHB-JOURQUAL2: Method, Results, and Implications of the German Academic Association for Business Research's Journal Ranking

VHB-JOURQUAL represents the official journal ranking of the German Academic Association for Business Research. Since its introduction in 2003, the ranking has become the most influential journal evaluation approach in German-speaking countries, impacting several key managerial decisions of German, Austrian, and Swiss business schools. This article reports the methodological approach of the ranking’s second edition. It also presents the main results and additional analyses on the validity of the rating and the underlying decision processes of the respondents. Selected implications for researchers and higher-education institutions are discussed.

Traffic incident clearance time and arrival time prediction based on hazard models

Accurate prediction of incident duration is not only important information of Traffic Incident Management System, but also an ffective input for travel time prediction. In this paper, the hazard based prediction odels are developed for both incident clearance time and arrival time. The data are obtained from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads’ STREAMS Incident Management System (SIMS) for one year ending in November 2010. The best fitting distributions are drawn for both clearance and arrival time for 3 types of incident: crash, stationary vehicle, and hazard. The results show that Gamma, Log-logistic, and Weibull are the best fit for crash, stationary vehicle, and hazard incident, respectively. The obvious impact factors are given for crash clearance time and arrival time. The quantitative influences for crash and hazard incident are presented for both clearance and arrival. The model accuracy is analyzed at the end.

Antecedent factors of knowledge sharing in research supervision

Today’s economy is a knowledge-based economy in which knowledge is a crucial facilitator to individuals, as well as being an instigator of success. Due to the impact of globalisation, universities face new challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, they ought to be more innovative and have their own competitive advantages. One of the most important goals of universities is the promotion of students as professional knowledge workers. Therefore, knowledge sharing and transfer at the tertiary level between students and supervisors is vital in universities, as it decreases the budget and provides an affordable way to do research. Knowledge-sharing impact factors can be categorised in three groups, namely: organisational, individual, and technical factors. Individual barriers to knowledge sharing include: the lack of time and trust and the lack of communication skills and social networks. IT systems such as elearning, blogs and portals can increase the knowledge-sharing capability. However, it must be stated that IT systems are only tools and not solutions. Individuals are still responsible for sharing information and knowledge. This paper proposes a new research model to examine the effect of individual factors, organisational factors (learning strategy, trust culture, supervisory support) and technological factors on knowledge sharing in the research supervision process.

The 'gender gap' in authorship in nursing literature

OBJECTIVES: Gender bias has been found in medical literature, with more men than women as first or senior authors of papers, despite about half of doctors being women. Nursing is about 90% female, so we aimed to determine if similar biases exist in nursing literature. DESIGN: Taking the eight non-specialist nursing journals with the highest impact factors for that profession, we counted the numbers of men and women first authors over 30 years. SETTING: We used nursing journals from around the world which attract the highest impact factors for nursing publication. PARTICIPANTS: Eight journals qualified for entry, three from the United Kingdom, four from the United States of America, and one from Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, we determined differences between the numbers of men and women across all the journals, between countries (USA, UK and Australia), changes over the 30 years, and changes within journals over time. RESULTS Despite the small proportion of men in the nursing workforce, up to 30% of first authors were men. UK journals were more likely to have male authors than USA journals, and this increased over time. USA journals had proportions of male first authors consistent with the male proportion of its nursing workforce. CONCLUSIONS In the UK (though not in the USA) gender bias in nursing publishing exists, even though the nursing workforce is strongly feminized. This warrants further research, but is likely to be due to the same reasons for the gender gap in medical publishing; that is, female nurses take time out to have families, and social and family responsibilities prevent them taking opportunities for career progression, whereas men's careers often are not affected in such ways.