Thanks for the insight into how the system works. I see now why the
procedings go out in January. I am not encouraged by the logic of the
system. h-factors will probably help though.
Acta D should improve a bit in 2006, since one paper alone from the 2004
procedings was cited 326 times in 2006.
Jon Wright wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you have any data to support the implication that Acta F will have
>> a lower citation factor than Acta D?
>>
>>
> Checked a web of sciences "Citation report" for a search with the year
> 2005 and "source titles":
>
> ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA SECTION F STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY "AND"
> CRYSTALLIZATION COMMUNICATIONS
> 310 papers, 280 citations, average citations 0.90, h-index 5.
>
> ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA SECTION D BIOLOGICAL CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
> 231 papers, 677 citations, average citations 2.93, h-index 7.
>
> JOURNAL OF APPLIED CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
> 146 papers, 337 citations, average citations 2.31, h-index 7.
>
> They say about "h-index": this metric is useful because it discounts the
> disproportionate weight of highly cited papers or papers that have not
> yet been cited (J.E. Hirsch /PNAS /102(46): 16569-16572, 2005).
>
>> FWIW, the impact factor of Acta D was down in 2005 relative to 2004.
>>
>>
> The 2005 citation report appears to be for articles published in 03/04
> and cited during 2005, so I don't think the split is yet taken into
> account.
>
> Seems that software papers can get really high numbers of citations.
> Funding agencies please take note?
>
> Jon
>
>
|