ABSTRACT
Publication citation-based research evaluation, even if only in support of peer review, is not everywhere, on every level, or for everyone suitable, because of differences in scientific research, patterns of research output, stages of scientific evolution, and merits-scientific or societal-of scientific results.
Subject(s)
Humans , Bibliometrics , China , Curriculum , Education, Graduate , Publications , Publishing , Research , Universities , WorkforceABSTRACT
We discuss what document types account for the calculation of the journal impact factor (JIF) as published in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Based on a brief review of articles discussing how to predict JIFs and taking data differences between the Web of Science (WoS) and the JCR into account, we make our own predictions. Using data by cited-reference searching for Thomson Scientific's WoS, we predict 2007 impact factors (IFs) for several journals, such as Nature, Science, Learned Publishing and some Library and Information Sciences journals. Based on our colleagues' experiences we expect our predictions to be lower bounds for the official journal impact factors. We explain why it is useful to derive one's own journal impact factor.