Finding Impact Factors: Journal Citation Reports latest edition
Journal citation reports can be used to find out the impact factor for a journal. This is a useful way of finding quality journals where your article is more likely to be cited (although it only covers science and social sciences). Our brief guide will get you started and you can find some training videos on the Thomson web site.
The latest edition has just been released, covering journal analysis for2014. 272 new journals have been added. There are some new metrics and an open access filter allowing people to look specifically at open access journals.
Once you have a list of the journals for your subject you can select the open access option to see which are the best performing open access journals for your area.
Want to know more?
Here are a few links to information to give you a flavour of the issues surrounding JCR and Impact Factors:
If you need help using Journal Citation Reports contact your subject librarian or firstname.lastname@example.org
Jamie, Public Engagement Officer at the University of Glasgow and former scientist, gave an entertaining talk on this topic at the university yesterday. Here are some of his key points, sadly expressed more dully than they were by him:
- Remember that people are not as interested in your research as you are. Jamie practised his communication skills at the Glasgow Science Centre and found that people will walk away if you don’t interest them. Find an angle which will appeal to your audience. Jamie was researching materials for energy harvesting but found it was easier to start a conversation on related topics which people could relate to such as using body heat to power a mobile phone.
- Being able and willing to talk can bring opportunities. The Science Council named him as one of the top hundred scientists – an accolade he insists he didn’t deserve but came through being well known. Keep a record of what you have done so that you have evidence of your achievements.
- Make it a mutually beneficial experience. Think what you would like to gain, for example, evidence for your research or experience in presenting. Also think what attendees might like to gain. For example, if they are members of the public at a museum they may want to be entertained. If they are asylum seekers they may want to feel they are achieving a purpose and you could consider going back to explain outcomes to them.
- Consider costs of engagement when applying for funding. There are opportunities to apply for money for outreach, public engagement or for training for your team. Research Councils UK (RCUK) now encourage this as part of ‘Pathway to Impact’ statements’. You should ensure you cost all your public engagement and outreach activities within this section of the grant application: they will consider costs for travel, evaluation, presenters and staff.
- Impact means causing a change. Jamie felt that it can be difficult to understand REF type impact and how you can generate impact from public engagement activities. Some people think that it means things like making a TV programme, but demonstrating the impact or change from this is difficult to measure. Try to ensure that your engagement has some benefit– it could be interest from the public, new skills for the researcher, children inspired to go to university etc. This could lead to REF type impact though proving change is not easy.
- Know your starting point and measure! It is difficult to measure the impact of public engagement. If you are going to demonstrate a change you need to keep a baseline of how things were when you started. Try to record everything you can. Count the number of people you speak to and the time you spend with them. You could ask questions and record the answers, ask people for a show of hands or use electronic voting to get feedback. If you speak to someone in depth keep a transcript.
- Make any measurement relevant to your aims – avoid long questionnaires with irrelevant questions about catering etc. Questions such as “Did you know about this before” can give evidence of change. Think of fun ways to capture the information you want. Jamie gave examples he has seen such as voting with ping pong balls, hitting shuttle cocks into an umbrella to give the correct answer, this was used to find out how long people take to get to work, and a graffiti wall filled with post it notes which looked like a work of art.
- Engagement doesn’t have to be public speaking. There are many ways to engage with the public, presenting at festivals, hosting events, activities or social media being one of the easiest mediums with the widest reach. Jamie in his entertaining style said he could think of many academics he might not want to put in front of an audience of children! He produced an online periodic table showing the countries where elements were discovered which produced a great deal of interest. Blogging is another way of presenting your research to a wider audience or you could produce an accessible summary of your research on a web page. It also doesn’t have to be the general public. There may be sensitive topics such as mental health where you could engage with charities for mutual benefit.
My only regret about the talk was that he didn’t give us a demonstration of his “science of salsa” dance!”
The Impact Story blog has been running a great series of posts around the theme of “Impact Challenge”:
The series has been running through November – the first post stated their aims to “supercharge your research impact”:
upgrade your professional visibility by conquering social media,
boost your readership and citations by getting your work online,
stay atop your field’s latest developments with automated alerting,
lock in the key connections with colleagues that’ll boost your career, and
dazzle evaluators with comprehensive tracking and reporting on your own impacts.
Each post has information and ideas, followed by some homework suggestions. Now the series is over, you can look through and pick which ones may benefit you most.
Nature News has compiled a list of the 100 most highly cited papers, using data from Science Citation Index. Of the 58 million items analysed, only 14,499 have more than 1,o0o citations – the 1985 discovery of the hole in the ozone layer has 1,871 citations. It takes over 12,119 citations to make the top 100. Watson & Crick’s paper on the structure of DNA misses the cut (5,207 citations) although the first observation of carbon nanotubes is ranked 36th in the list (22,899 citations). Only three papers have more than 100,000 citations.
- 1951 Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent: 305,148 citations
- 1970 Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4: 213,005 citations
- 1976 A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding: 155,530 citations
The most highly cited paper describes an assay to determine the amount of protein in a solution; papers on experimental methods and software dominate the list.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224#/interactive has more information, including full citations for the papers mentioned, a spreadsheet with the whole list, and interactive graphics.
ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID is a registry of unique identifiers for researchers and scholars that is open, non-proprietary, transparent, mobile, and community-based. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier to distinguish you from all other researchers, automatically linking your professional activities. It only takes 5 minutes to register and record your ORCID.
- Funding organisations like the U.S. NIH, Wellcome Trust, and Portuguese FCT are requesting ORCID iDs during grant submission.
- Publishers such as Nature and Elsevier are collecting ORCID iDs during manuscript submission, and your ORCID iD becomes a part of your publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you.
- Universities and research institutes such as Harvard, Oxford, Michigan, University of Glasgow, University College London and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) encourage ORCID adoption; many are creating ORCID iDs for their faculty, postdocs and graduate students.
- Professional associations like the Society for Neuroscience and Modern Language Association are incorporating ORCID iDs into membership renewal.
What you should do:
- Claim your free ORCID iD at http://orcid.org/register . It only takes two minutes to register. How-to-video
- Record your ORCID iD (e.g. 0000-0002-6791-2886) in ABW under the ‘Research Submissions’ tab, this takes 3 minutes. How-to-video
- Use your ORCID wherever you see it: HR systems, applications for grants, publication submission, Impactstory, Figshare and more. Learn more at http://orcid.org.
- Put your ORCID in your email signature so you don’t have to remember it or where you put it.
- Link your ResearcherID and Scopus Author Identifier
- Import your research outputs and add biographical information using automated import wizards
PG and PhD students, early new researchers and even UG students (if they are conducting work which may be published) are encouraged to register early in their careers to achieve the maximum benefit of this scheme.
Want to know more? Here are 10 things you should know about ORCID by Impactstory. If you have any questions about ORCID you can contact Rebecca email@example.com , Information Services & Systems.
The journal Science reports on a study carried out by the Google Scholar team. According to this research:
In 1995, only 27% of citations pointed to articles published in nonelite journals. That portion grew to 47% by 2013. And the nonelite journals published an increasing share of the most highly cited papers within each field as well, growing from 14% to 24%.
John Bohanon: Uprising: Less prestigious journal publishing greater share of high-impact papers. (at news.sciencemag.org)
Anurag Acharya et al: Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals. (at arxiv.org)