Analysis of the typologies of psychological publications in high Impact Factor journals: Some clues for reflecting on the system for assessing the quality of scientific publications
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The contribution, after an in-depth and critical analysis of the bibliometric evaluation system of scientific publications, offers an overview of the types of scientific publications in psychology, in journals with high impact factor (> 6.5), published in the period 2008-2013. 7487 publications included in the study were cataloged by type (case study, research, review, theoretical articles). The results show that the types of articles most accepted in high impact factor journals are mainly research, then theoretical articles, then reviews and finally case studies, the latter almost non-existent. However, the articles with the highest impact factor are reviews, followed by theoretical articles, research and finally case studies. The results are discussed in the light of the critical issues identified on the bibliometric evaluation system of publications, and are offered as ideas for rethinking the relationship between organizations that deal with scientific research, and which require evaluation, and their reference contexts.
Article Details
Issue
Section
How to Cite
References
Anfossi, A., Ciolfi, A., Costa, F., Parisi, G., & Benedetto, S. (2016). Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1882-9
Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal Impact Factors and Self-Citations: Implications for Psychology Journals. American Psychologist, 59(1), 49-51. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.49
Azer, S. A., Holen, A., Wilson, I., & Skokauskas, N. (2016). Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?. Journal of postgraduate medicine, 62(1), 32-39. doi:10.4103/0022-3859.173202
Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2016). Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1651-1671. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1929-y
Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451-466. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.004
Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017). Playing the ranking game: media coverage of the evaluation of the quality of research in Italy. Higher Education, 73(5), 741-757. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-9991-1
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022.
Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92(2), 281-292. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0676-y
Carbone, P. (2014). Impact factor and research quality. Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine (IEEE), 17(6), 34-35.
Christenson, J.A., & Sigelman, L. (1985). Accrediting knowledge: Journal stature and citation impact in social science. Social Science Quarterly, 66(4), 964-975.
Fernández-Ríos, L., & Rodríguez-Díaz, J. (2014). The “impact factor style of thinking”: A new theoretical framework. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 154-160. doi:10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70049-3
Figà Talamanca, A. (2000, October). L’Impact Factor nella valutazione della ricerca e nello sviluppo dell’editoria scientifica [Impact factor in research evaluation and development of scientific publishing]. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of IV Seminario SINM, Lecce.
Fleck, C. (2013). The impact factor fetishism. European Journal of Sociology, 54(02), 327-356.
Garfield, E. (1996). Fortnightly review: How can impact factors be improved? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411-413.
Garfield, E. (1998). The impact factor and its proper application. Der Unfallchirurg, 101(6), 413-414.
Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979-980.
Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. Revista internacional de psicología clínica y de la salud, 3(2), 363-369.
Garfield, E. (2005). The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf
Haslam, N., & Laham, S.M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 216-220.
Hegarty, P., & Walton, Z. (2012). The consequences of predicting scientific impact in psychology using journal impact factors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 72-78.
Knothe, G. (2006). Comparative citation analysis of duplicate or highly related publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1830-1839. doi:10.1002/asi.20409
Langher, V., Caputo, A., & Martino, G. (2017). What happened to the clinical approach to case study in psychological research? A clinical psychological analysis of scientific articles in high impact-factor journals. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5(3), 1-16. doi:10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1670
Levorato, M.C., & Marchetto, E. (2003). Il giudizio degli psicologi italiani sulle riviste nazionali e internazionali [The judgement of Italian psychologists about national and international journals]. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 30(1), 15-36.
Liu, X.-L., Gai, S.-S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction? PLoS One, 11(3), e0151414. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151414
Lozano, G.A., Larivie`re, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The Weakening Relationship Between the Impact Factor and Papers' Citations in the Digital Age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140-2145. doi:10.1002/asi.22731.
McGarty, C. (2000). The citation impact factor in social psychology: A bad statistic that encourages bad science? Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-16.
McGrail, M.R., Rickard, C.M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Pandita, R., & Singh, S. (2015). Impact of Self-Citations on Impact Factor: A Study Across Disciplines, Countries and Continents. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 3(2), 42-57.
Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Sevinc, A. (2004). Manipulating impact factor: An unethical issue or an Editor's choice. Swiss Med Wkly, 134(27-28), 410.
Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134
Smith, A.T., & Eysenck, M. (2002). The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology. Retrieved from https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/2749/1/citations.pdf
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195-1225.
Vanclay, J. (2009). Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 78(1), 3-12.
Wardle, D. (2015). The journal impact factor contest leads to erosion of quality of peer review. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 7(1), 84-85. doi:10.4033/iee.2014.7.17.c