Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals
It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor and a usage half-life in analogy to the correspo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Scientometrics 2010-03, Vol.82 (3), p.567-580 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 580 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 567 |
| container_title | Scientometrics |
| container_volume | 82 |
| creator | Schloegl, Christian Gorraiz, Juan |
| description | It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor and a usage half-life in analogy to the corresponding Thomson’s citation indicators. The usage data were provided from Science Direct, subject category “oncology”. Citation indicators were obtained from JCR, article citations were retrieved from SCI and Scopus. Our study shows that downloads and citations have different obsolescence patterns. While the average cited half-life was 5.6 years, we computed a mean usage half-life of 1.7 years for the year 2006. We identified a strong correlation between the citation frequencies and the number of downloads for our journal sample. The relationship was lower when performing the analysis on a paper by paper basis because of existing variances in the citation-download-ratio among articles. Also the correlation between the usage impact factor and Thomson’s journal impact factor was “only” moderate because of different obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_742892988</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>742892988</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-199e3b0fe87519de5636d637654a0900c7ad5b10d357ba58ced3a0adcf19fd0d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwA9i8MQXu4jq22VDFpyqxwGy5tlNSpXaxk6H_HleBleF0p9P7nHQPIdcItwgg7jIiqroChFKirvCEzJBLWdWywVMyA2SyUsjgnFzkvIXCMJAz8raMu71JXY6BxpbabjBDV2YTHB2z2XjaBddZM8SU7-nw5ak12R-jMdjYx82BbuOYgunzJTlrS_NXv31OPp8eP5Yv1er9-XX5sKosk81QoVKeraH1UnBUzvOGNa5houELAwrACuP4GsExLtaGS-sdM2CcbVG1rqzn5Ga6u0_xe_R50LsuW9_3Jvg4Zi0WtVS1krIkcUraFHNOvtX71O1MOmgEfdSmJ226aNNHbRoLU09MLtmw8Un__fcP9APkJHAs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>742892988</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Schloegl, Christian ; Gorraiz, Juan</creator><creatorcontrib>Schloegl, Christian ; Gorraiz, Juan</creatorcontrib><description>It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor and a usage half-life in analogy to the corresponding Thomson’s citation indicators. The usage data were provided from Science Direct, subject category “oncology”. Citation indicators were obtained from JCR, article citations were retrieved from SCI and Scopus. Our study shows that downloads and citations have different obsolescence patterns. While the average cited half-life was 5.6 years, we computed a mean usage half-life of 1.7 years for the year 2006. We identified a strong correlation between the citation frequencies and the number of downloads for our journal sample. The relationship was lower when performing the analysis on a paper by paper basis because of existing variances in the citation-download-ratio among articles. Also the correlation between the usage impact factor and Thomson’s journal impact factor was “only” moderate because of different obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0138-9130</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1588-2861</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SCNTDX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Bibliometrics ; Computer Science ; Half life ; Information Storage and Retrieval ; Library Science ; Scholarly publishing</subject><ispartof>Scientometrics, 2010-03, Vol.82 (3), p.567-580</ispartof><rights>Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-199e3b0fe87519de5636d637654a0900c7ad5b10d357ba58ced3a0adcf19fd0d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-199e3b0fe87519de5636d637654a0900c7ad5b10d357ba58ced3a0adcf19fd0d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schloegl, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorraiz, Juan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals</title><title>Scientometrics</title><addtitle>Scientometrics</addtitle><description>It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor and a usage half-life in analogy to the corresponding Thomson’s citation indicators. The usage data were provided from Science Direct, subject category “oncology”. Citation indicators were obtained from JCR, article citations were retrieved from SCI and Scopus. Our study shows that downloads and citations have different obsolescence patterns. While the average cited half-life was 5.6 years, we computed a mean usage half-life of 1.7 years for the year 2006. We identified a strong correlation between the citation frequencies and the number of downloads for our journal sample. The relationship was lower when performing the analysis on a paper by paper basis because of existing variances in the citation-download-ratio among articles. Also the correlation between the usage impact factor and Thomson’s journal impact factor was “only” moderate because of different obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations.</description><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Half life</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval</subject><subject>Library Science</subject><subject>Scholarly publishing</subject><issn>0138-9130</issn><issn>1588-2861</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwA9i8MQXu4jq22VDFpyqxwGy5tlNSpXaxk6H_HleBleF0p9P7nHQPIdcItwgg7jIiqroChFKirvCEzJBLWdWywVMyA2SyUsjgnFzkvIXCMJAz8raMu71JXY6BxpbabjBDV2YTHB2z2XjaBddZM8SU7-nw5ak12R-jMdjYx82BbuOYgunzJTlrS_NXv31OPp8eP5Yv1er9-XX5sKosk81QoVKeraH1UnBUzvOGNa5houELAwrACuP4GsExLtaGS-sdM2CcbVG1rqzn5Ga6u0_xe_R50LsuW9_3Jvg4Zi0WtVS1krIkcUraFHNOvtX71O1MOmgEfdSmJ226aNNHbRoLU09MLtmw8Un__fcP9APkJHAs</recordid><startdate>20100301</startdate><enddate>20100301</enddate><creator>Schloegl, Christian</creator><creator>Gorraiz, Juan</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100301</creationdate><title>Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals</title><author>Schloegl, Christian ; Gorraiz, Juan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-199e3b0fe87519de5636d637654a0900c7ad5b10d357ba58ced3a0adcf19fd0d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Half life</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval</topic><topic>Library Science</topic><topic>Scholarly publishing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schloegl, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorraiz, Juan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><jtitle>Scientometrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schloegl, Christian</au><au>Gorraiz, Juan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals</atitle><jtitle>Scientometrics</jtitle><stitle>Scientometrics</stitle><date>2010-03-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>567</spage><epage>580</epage><pages>567-580</pages><issn>0138-9130</issn><eissn>1588-2861</eissn><coden>SCNTDX</coden><abstract>It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor and a usage half-life in analogy to the corresponding Thomson’s citation indicators. The usage data were provided from Science Direct, subject category “oncology”. Citation indicators were obtained from JCR, article citations were retrieved from SCI and Scopus. Our study shows that downloads and citations have different obsolescence patterns. While the average cited half-life was 5.6 years, we computed a mean usage half-life of 1.7 years for the year 2006. We identified a strong correlation between the citation frequencies and the number of downloads for our journal sample. The relationship was lower when performing the analysis on a paper by paper basis because of existing variances in the citation-download-ratio among articles. Also the correlation between the usage impact factor and Thomson’s journal impact factor was “only” moderate because of different obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0138-9130 |
| ispartof | Scientometrics, 2010-03, Vol.82 (3), p.567-580 |
| issn | 0138-9130 1588-2861 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_742892988 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Bibliometrics Computer Science Half life Information Storage and Retrieval Library Science Scholarly publishing |
| title | Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T19%3A20%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20citation%20and%20usage%20indicators:%20the%20case%20of%20oncology%20journals&rft.jtitle=Scientometrics&rft.au=Schloegl,%20Christian&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=567&rft.epage=580&rft.pages=567-580&rft.issn=0138-9130&rft.eissn=1588-2861&rft.coden=SCNTDX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E742892988%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=742892988&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |