More About the 2014 JCR

I’ve looked at the 2014 Journal Citation Report for JGR and wanted to give you a little more information and interpretation. As stated in my last post, the 2-year Journal Impact Factor for JGR for 2014 was 3.4, the same as it was in 2013. The 5-year JIF was also the same, at 3.7.

Both the denominator (number of papers in 2012 and 2013) and the numerator (citations to those papers in 2014) went up by ~5%. The change was about 1% for the 5-year JIF. Overall, JGR published ~280 more papers in 2013 than in 2011, accounting for this rise.

There are lots of other journal metrics in the Journal Citation Report. Here are a few of them:

  • Total cites: went up by ~6% to an amazing 188,000. While Science and Nature get over half a million, this value for JGR is huge for a discipline-specific journal.
  • Self cites: steady at 20% of the total citations to JGR papers, indicative of a journal that is dominant in its field.
  • Immediacy index: dropped ever so slightly to 0.64. Not bad. This is 2014 citations of 2014 papers, so it is highly skewed by early-in-the-year publications.
  • Cited half-life: as in previous years, this is still over 10 years, meaning that JGR papers receive more than half of their eventual total citations a decade after publication.
  • Citing half-life: also as in previous years, it is just under 10 years, this time at 9.3. This is a measure of the “age” of the references within JGR
  • References per paper: holding steady at 55.
  • Eigenfactor score: dropped a bit to 0.32. Remember that this is like the 5-year JIF with the numerator weighted by the strength of the citing journal and with self-cites removed. Most journals are below 0.5.
  • Article Influence Score: also dropped a bit to 1.44. This number calibrates the eigenfactor by the number of papers in the discipline, with values above unity being very good.

So, in summary, I’d say that JGR is doing quite well.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “More About the 2014 JCR

  1. Impact factor is not very informative for JGR, because they put together all the sections (Space, Earth, Oceans, etc.). So one cannot say anything on how JGR-Space is doing. My personal feeling is that in the last years much of the audience has actually moved away from JGR (space) to ApJ (and other). What do you think? Shouldn’t AGU ask/provide for IFs for each section?

  2. You are exactly on target with your question and I completely agree that Impact Factor is not very informative for JGR because they put together all sections. In short, it is being addressed. With the switch to Wiley as the publisher of AGU journals, Wiley created separate ISBN numbers for each section of JGR. I think that next year might be the first for which there is a sufficient number of years to report a 2-year Impact Factor for each section of JGR separately.

  3. As for a switch to ApJ or other journals, this is perhaps true for the solar physics community. It’s a good discussion point and I encourage other readers to comment on this issue if they so desire. Also, I will make this issue the topic of a post in the near future.

  4. Pingback: Details of JGR’s 2015 JCR | Notes from the JGR-Space Physics Editor-in-Chief

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