Abstract

Journals are ranked in the subject categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) according to their impact factors (JIF). The calculation of this indicator includes both citations received from other journals and self-citations from the journal itself. In this paper the current model of the JCR is compared with an alternate model using the JIF without self-citations as a variable. In order to do this, simulations were carried out using JIF without self-citations as an alternative variable. We studied the relationship between the two variables (JIF with self-citations and JIF without self-citations), the gain obtained by the journals with the usual JIF with self-citations, the changes in the ranking in the whole JCR, and changes in the internal ranking in the JCR’s subject categories. A small negative correlation was found between the gain that the journals obtained and their JIF. The results obtained suggest that if JIF without self-citations were used as the variable, the ranking of journals in the JCR and within the subject categories would be, in general, very different from the current one. The quantification of these differences is one of the more interesting results of this work.

Abstract

 Aunque las prácticas generales de publicación difieren claramente entre las disciplinas, el conocimiento sobre los indicadores cienciométricos también puede variar considerablemente. La heterogeneidad observada en el conocimiento bibliométrico nos inspiró a definir el concepto de ‘sabiduría-métrica’ para los investigadores. Ser métrico-sabio puede representar una ventaja para los investigadores expertos sobre los colegas desinformados. Identificamos dos caminos a través de los cuales el conocimiento de las métricas puede desempeñar un papel y conducir a cambios de comportamiento en el proceso de investigación. Como primer camino, tales conocimientos pueden ser vistos como una herramienta adicional, útil en la presentación de informes de investigación. El segundo camino es más ambiguo y tiene algunos aspectos indeseables, que posiblemente hagan disminuir los factores motivacionales intrínsecos para investigar. La innovación y la investigación innovadora se ralentizan si se produce un excesivo desplazamiento de la atención hacia los indicadores cientométricos. Proponemos un enfoque para medir realmente la sabiduría métrica.  Abstract While general publication practices clearly differ between disciplines, knowledge about scientometric indicators can also greatly vary. The observed heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge inspired us to define the concept of ‘metric-wiseness’ for researchers. Being metric-wise can lead to an advantage for knowledgeable researchers over uninformed colleagues, even when they are of otherwise equal competence. We identify two paths through which metric-wiseness can play a role and lead to behavioural changes in the research process. As a first path, metric-wiseness can be seen as an additional tool that is useful in reporting one’s research portfolio. A second one is more ambiguous and has some undesirable aspects, possibly diminishing intrinsic motivational factors for doing research. Innovation and innovative research slows down if crowding out happens due to an excessive attention to scientometric indicators. We propose an approach to actually measure metric-wiseness.