International Standard Serial Number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ISSN encoded in an EAN-13 barcode with sequence variant 0 and issue number 5

Example of an ISSN encoded in an EAN-13 barcode, with explanation

ISSN expanded with sequence variant 0 to a GTIN-13 and encoded in an EAN-13 barcode
with an EAN-2add-on designating issue number 13An International Standard Serial
Number (ISSN) is a unique eight-digit number used to identify a periodical publication at a
specific media type.
[1]
It is internationally accepted as a fundamental identifier for
distinguishing between identical serial titles and facilitating checking and ordering
procedures, collection management, legal deposit, interlibrary loans etc.
[2]
When a periodical
is published, with the same content, in two or more different media, a different ISSN is
assigned to each media type in particular the print and electronic media types, named print
ISSN (p-ISSN) and electronic ISSN (e-ISSN or eISSN).The ISSN system was first drafted as
an ISO international standard in 1971 and published as ISO 3297 in 1975.
[3]
The ISO
subcommitteeTC 46/SC 9 is responsible for the standard. To assign a unique identifier to the
serial as content (linking among the different media), ISSN-Lmust be used, as defined by ISO
3297:2007.
Code format[edit]
The format of the ISSN is an eight digit number, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit
numbers.
[1]
The last digit, which may be 0-9 or an X, is a check digit. The general form of the
ISSN code can be expressed by a PCRE regular expression:
\d{4}\-\d{3}[\dX]
The ISSN of the journal Hearing Research, for example, is 0378-5955, where the final 5 is
the check digit. To calculate the check digit, the following algorithm may be used:Calculate
the sum of the first seven digits of the ISSN multiplied by its position in the number, counting
from the right that is, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2, respectively:



The modulus 11 of this sum is then calculated; divide the sum by 11 and determine the
remainder:

If there is no remainder the check digit is 0, otherwise the remainder value is subtracted from
11 to give the check digit:

5 is the check digit.
An upper case X in the check digit position indicates a check digit of 10 (like a Roman ten).
To confirm the check digit, calculate the sum of all eight digits of the ISSN multiplied by its
position in the number, counting from the right (if the check digit is X, then add 10 to the
sum). The modulus 11 of the sum must be 0.There is an online ISSN checker that can
validate an ISSN, based on the above algorithm.
[4][5]

Code assignment[edit]
ISSN codes are assigned by a network of ISSN National Centres, usually located at national
libraries and coordinated by the ISSN International Centre based in Paris. The International
Centre is an intergovernmental organization created in 1974 through an agreement
between UNESCO and the French government. The International Centre maintains a
database of all ISSNs assigned worldwide, the ISDS Register (International Serials Data
System) otherwise known as the ISSN Register. At the end of 2013, the ISSN Register
contained records for 1,749,971 items.
[6]

Comparison with other identifiers[edit]
ISSN and ISBN codes are similar in concept, where ISBNs are assigned to individual books.
An ISBN might be assigned for particular issues of a periodical, in addition to the ISSN code
for the periodical as a whole. An ISSN, unlike the ISBN code, is an anonymous identifier
associated with a periodical title, containing no information as to the publisher or itslocation.
For this reason a new ISSN is assigned to a periodical each time it undergoes a major title
change.Since the ISSN applies to an entire periodical a new identifier, the Serial Item and
Contribution Identifier, was built on top of it to allow references to specific volumes, articles,
or other identifiable components (like the table of contents).
Media vs Content[edit]
Separate ISSN are needed for serials in different media (except reproduction microforms).
Thus, the print and electronic media versions of a serial need separate ISSN.
[7]
Also, aCD-
ROM version and a web version of a serial require different ISSN since two different media
are involved. However, the same ISSN can be used for different file formats
(e.g. PDFand HTML) of the same online serial.
This "media-oriented identification" of serials made sense in the 1970s. In the 1990s and
onward, with PCs, good screens, and the Web, what makes sense is to consider onlycontent,
independent of media. This "content-oriented identification" of serials' was a repressed
demand during a decade, but no ISSN's update or iniciativeoccured. A natural extension for
ISSN, the unique-identification of the articles in the serials, was the main demand
application. An alternative serials' contents model arrived with the indecs Content Model and
its application, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), as ISSN-independent iniciative,
consolidated in the 2000's.Only later, in 2007, ISSN-L was defined in the new ISSN standard
(ISO 3297:2007) as an "ISSN designated by the ISSN Network to enable collocation or
versions of a continuing resource linking among the different media".
[8]

Availability[edit]
The ISSN Register is not freely available for interrogation on the web, but is available by
subscription. There are several routes to the identification and verification of ISSN codes for
the public:
The print version of a periodical typically will include the ISSN code as part of the
publication information.
Most periodical websites contain ISSN code information.
Derivative lists of publications will often contain ISSN codes; these can be found
through on-line searches with the ISSN code itself or periodical title.
WorldCat permits searching its catalog by ISSN, by entering "issn:"+ISSN code in the
query field. One can also go directly to an ISSN's record by appending it to
"http://www.worldcat.org/ISSN/", e.g. http://www.worldcat.org/ISSN/1021-9749.
This does not query the ISSN Register itself, but rather shows whether any Worldcat
library holds an item with the given ISSN.
Use in URNs[edit]
An ISSN can be encoded as a Uniform Resource Name (URN) by prefixing it with
"urn:ISSN:".
[9]
For example Rail could be referred to as "urn:ISSN:1534-0481". URN
namespaces are case-sensitive, and the ISSN namespace is all caps.
[10]
If the checksum digit
is "X" then it is always encoded in uppercase in a URN.
Problems[edit]
The util URNs are content-oriented, but ISSN is media-oriented:
ISSN is not unique when the concept is "a journal is a set of contents, generally
copyrighted content": the same journal (same contents and same copyrights) have two
or more ISSN codes. A URN needs to point to "unique content" (a "unique journal" as
a "set of contents" reference).
Examples: Nature has an ISSN for print, 0028-0836, and another for the same content
on the Web, 1476-4687; only the oldest (0028-0836) is used as a unique identifier. As
the ISSN is not unique, the U.S. National Library of Medicine needed to create, prior
to 2007, the NLM Unique ID (J ID).
[11]

ISSN does not offer resolution mechanisms like a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or
an URN does, so the DOI is used as a URN for articles, with (for historical reasons)
no need for an ISSN's existence.
Example: the DOI name "10.1038/nature13777" can represented as an HTTP string
by http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13777, and is redirected (resolved) to the current
article's page; but there is no ISSN's online service, like http://dx.issn.org/, to resolve
the ISSN of the journal (in this sample 1476-4687), that is, a kind
ofhttp://dx.issn.org/1476-4687 redirecting to the journal's home.
A unique URN for serials simplifies the search, recovery and delivery of data for various
services including, in particular, search systems and knowledge databases.
[8]
ISSN-L was
created to fill this gap.
ISSN variants[edit]
Print ISSN[edit]
p-ISSN, the "default" ISSN, is the ISSN for the print media (paper) version of a periodical.
Electronic ISSN[edit]
e-ISSN (or eISSN) is the ISSN for the electronic media (online) version of a periodical.
Linking ISSN[edit]
ISSN-L is a unique identifier for all versions of the periodical containing the
same content across different media.
International Standard Serial Number ( ISSN ) :
ISSN is a worldwide identification code used by publishers, suppliers, libraries, information
services, bar coding systems, union catalogues, etc. for citation and retrieval of serials such as
J ournals, Newspapers, Newsletters, Directories, Yearbooks, Annual Reports & Monograph
series, etc. The benefits include international publicity and recognition of the serial by
automatic inclusion in the International Serials Directory Database.ISSN International Centre
is a network with its Headquarters at Paris. National Science Library (NSL) is the national
centre in India of ISSN international centre for assigning ISSN to serials published in India.
List of Recently Assigned ISSN Numbers
Serials ?
Serials are print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers
and/or dates. A serial is expected to continue indefinitely. Serials include magazines,
newspapers, annuals (such as reports, yearbooks, and directories), journals, memoirs,
proceedings, transactions of societies, and monographic series .
ISSN ?
The ISSN is the International Standard Serial Number, which allows the identification of
serial publications. It s a standard numeric code made up of 8 digits whose last digit is a
control character that may be the letter X .

Why ISSN?
The ISSN distinguishes a particular serial from others. The ISSN also helps library patrons,
libraries, and others who handle large numbers of serials to find and identify titles in
automated systems more quickly and easily.
Does the ISSN Have Any Meaning Embedded in the Number?
Unlike the ISBN, which contains country and publisher prefixes, the ISSN contains no
inherent meaning.
Who Assigns ISSN?
ISSN is assigned by a network of over 60 centers worldwide coordinated by the ISSN
International Centre located in Paris. ISSN is assigned to serials published in India by the
NSL being National Centre for ISSN. Serials published outside of India are assigned ISSN by
the national center of their country of publication, or, in the case of countries lacking a
national center, by the ISSN International Centre. Information about the ISSN network and
ISSN centers worldwide can be found on the ISSN International Centre's home page.
What changes affect the ISSN?
Serials often undergo changes (of publisher, frequency, format, edition, country of origin),
which do not affect the ISSN. However, if the title changes significantly, a new ISSN must be
assigned.
How can one get an ISSN for a Serial?
Publishers should complete an application form and send it to the Centre together with a
representation of the serial (either a sample issue, or print ready copy, publisher information,
and any other pages giving information about the serial.
How Much Does It Cost to Get an ISSN?
There is no charge for the assignment of the ISSN, or for the use of an ISSN once assigned.
Does one need a separate ISSN for each Issue?
No. ISSN is assigned to the entire serial and stays the same from issue to issue unless you
change the title of your serial.
What happens if one changes the title?
Title changes are costly for libraries and can be costly to publishers as well. If there is a
change in the title, one needs to apply for a new ISSN at least a month in advance.
How many ISSN do one need?
That depends. For most serials one ISSN for each title under which it has been published is
sufficient. But, if your serial is published in different language, regional, or physical editions
(e.g., print, electronic), you will probably require a separate ISSN for each edition.
Where and how one should print the ISSN?
The preferred location for printing the ISSN on a printed serial is on the upper right-hand
corner of the cover. Other good locations are the masthead area, the copyright page, or in the
publishing statement where information about the publisher, frequency, and other publication
facts are given. On a non-print serial, the ISSN should be printed, if possible, on an internal
source, such as on a title screen or home page. Other suggested locations on non-print serials
are on external sources such as microfiche headers, cassette or disc labels, or other
containers. If a publication has both an ISSN and an ISBN, each should be printed. If a
publication is in a series which has its own ISSN, both ISSN should be printed, accompanied
by the title to which it pertains.
Does one need to send each issue of published serial?
No. The ISSN office only needs to see one published issue either at the time of registration,
or after publication, for ISSN issued prior to the publication of the first issue of a serial.
What is the ISBN?
ISBN or International Standard Book Number is the book counterpart to the ISSN. It is a
national and international standard identification number for uniquely identifying books, i.e.,
publications that are not intended to continue indefinitely.
Can a publication have both an ISSN and an ISBN?
Yes. This situation occurs most commonly with books in a series and with annuals or
biennials. The ISBN identifies the individual book in a series or a specific year for an annual
or biennial. The ISSN identifies the ongoing series, or the ongoing annual or biennial serial.
How are ISSN used in bar Codes?
The ISSN is used in several bar codes as the title identifier portion of the code. One such
code, the SISAC bar code symbol, can be found on scholarly, technical, medical and other
subscription-based serials. The SISAC symbol is used by libraries and library-affiliated
organizations. The symbol can also represent articles within journals and is used by document
delivery services. The other major bar code that uses the ISSN is the EAN (International
Article Number).
Who can obtain ISSN?
1. Any new print or electronic journal whose first issue is ready for publication or
already published.
2. An existing serial publication which does not have ISSN.
3. Changed serial title(s) whose old titles had already an ISSN.
How to obtain ISSN?
One can obtain ISSN by applying through filled datasheet, download
from www.niscair.res.in along with a specimen copy of the serial in case of print version or a
copy of homepagein case of online version to Head, National Science Library, National
Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), 14 -
SatsangVihar Marg, New Delhi -110 067. Contact No. 011-2Most Read Research Articles
Novel Application of Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) Neural Networks to Model HIV
in South Africa using Seroprevalence Data from Antenatal Clinics
An Effective Evolutionary Clustering Algorithm: Hepatitis C Case Study
Enhanced TCP Westwood Congestion Avoidance Mechanism (TCP WestwoodNew)
Adaptivity and Adaptability of Learning Object s Interface
Migration of Legacy Information System based on Business Process Theory
HomeISSN
ISSN is a worldwide identification code used by publishers, suppliers, libraries, information
services, bar coding systems, union catalogues, etc. for citation and retrieval of serials such as
J ournals, Newspapers, Newsletters, Directories, Yearbooks, Annual Reports & Monograph
series, etc. The benefits include international publicity and recognition of the serial by
automatic inclusion in the International Serials Directory Database.
The International J ournal of Computer Applications has been the assigned the unique online
ISSN 0975-8887.
Serials ?
Serials are print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers
and/or dates. A serial is expected to continue indefinitely. Serials include magazines,
newspapers, annuals (such as reports, yearbooks, and directories), journals, memoirs,
proceedings, transactions of societies, and monographic series .
ISSN ?
The ISSN is the International Standard Serial Number, which allows the identification of
serial publications. It s a standard numeric code made up of 8 digits whose last digit is a
control character that may be the letter X .

Why ISSN?
The ISSN distinguishes a particular serial from others. The ISSN also helps library patrons,
libraries, and others who handle large numbers of serials to find and identify titles in
automated systems more quickly and easily.
Does the ISSN Have Any Meaning Embedded in the Number?
Unlike the ISBN, which contains country and publisher prefixes, the ISSN contains no
inherent meaning.
6516672
Serials Defined
Serials are print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers
and/or dates. A serial is expected to continue indefinitely. Serials include magazines,
newspapers, annuals (such as reports, yearbooks, and directories), journals, memoirs,
proceedings, transactions of societies, and monographic series.
International Standard Serial Numbering (ISSN)
The various and constant changes to which serials are subject, combined with the
large growth in the world's publishing output, prompted the development of a
standard (ISO 3297-1975; ANSI Z39.9-1979) for the identification of serials: the
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN).
A single ISSN uniquely identifies a title regardless of language or country in which
published, without the burden of a complex bibliographic description. The ISSN itself
has no significance other than the unique identification of a serial.
An ISSN is eight digits long. Always displayed this way: ISSN 1234-5679, the first
seven digits serve as the title number and the eighth is a check digit which provides an
efficient means for discovering transcription errors. The system used for calculating
the check digit sometimes requires a check number of 10, in which case, to prevent a
nine-digit ISSN, the roman numeral "X" is substituted.
For each serial with an ISSN there is a corresponding "key title"--a commonly
acceptable form of the title established at the time of ISSN assignment. The title
provides a benchmark which serves to regulate the assignment of ISSN: if the title of
a serial changes, a new ISSN must be assigned.
Advantages of Use

The ISSN should be as basic a part of a serial as the title. The advantages of using it are
abundant and the more the number is used the more benefits will accrue.
1. ISSN provides a useful and economical method of communication between publishers
and suppliers, making trade distribution systems faster and more efficient.
2. The ISSN results in accurate citing of serials by scholars, researchers, abstracters, and
librarians.
3. As a standard numeric identification code, the ISSN is eminently suitable for
computer use in fulfilling the need for file update and linkage, retrieval, and
transmittal of data.
4. ISSN is used in libraries for identifying titles, ordering and checking in, and claiming
serials.
5. ISSN simplifies interlibrary loan systems and union catalog reporting and listing.
6. The U.S. Postal Service uses the ISSN to regulate certain publications mailed at
second-class and controlled circulation rates.
7. The ISSN is an integral component of the journal article citation used to monitor
payments to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
8. All ISSN registrations are maintained in an international data base and are made
available in the ISSN Register online.
ALA Library Fact Sheet 28
Instructive articles on obtaining the International Standard Book Number, or ISBN, for book
publications, and on obtaining the International Standard Serial Number, on ISSN, for
periodicals and serial publications, always appear in the Library and Book Trade Almanac
TM
,
formerly known as The Bowker Annual, which is published every year by Information
Today, Inc. Below is information referring to the latest edition.
ISBN - International Standard Book Number
In the 2010 Library and Book Trade Almanac
TM
, the 55th Edition, the article "How to Obtain
an ISBN" appears on pages 539-543, written by Andy Weissberg and Louise Timko of the
United States ISBN Agency. The article discloses that J . Whitaker & Sons Ltd. introduced
the ISBN system to the UK in 1967, while R.R. Bowker introduced the ISBN system to the
United States in 1968. Presently, the Technical Committee on Documentation of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO TC 46) is responsible for the
international standard. The U.S. ISBN Agency is at R.R. Bowker, LLC.
The purpose of the ISBN is to coordinate and standardize the use of identifying numbers so
that each ISBN is unique to a title, edition of a book, or monographic publication -- braille,
microform, and electronic publications, as well as audiobooks, educational/instructional
videos/DVDs and software -- published or produced by a specific publisher or producer.
To increase the numbering capacity of the ISBN, its number of digits was expanded from the
original 10 (ISBN-10) to 13 (ISBN-13), effective J anuary 1, 2007.
The ISBN-13 consists of thirteen digits separated into the following parts:
Prefix of "978" converts existing ISBN-10 to the ISBN-13 system (three digits)
Group or country identifier, national or geographic grouping of publishers (one digit)
Publisher or producer identifier (four digits)
Title identifier, particular title or edition of a title (four digits)
Check digit, for ISBN-13 validation (one digit)
The proper reference for the ISBN is for these five parts to be separated out by a space or
hyphen, and preceded by the letters ISBN.Assignment of ISBNs is handled by the U.S. ISBN
Agency in conjunction with a title's publisher. For an ISBN application and information for a
new title, or to find out about available ISBN-13 conversion services for an existing title, see
the web site of the U.S. ISBN Agency, at:
http://www.isbn.org
ISSN - International Standard Serial Number
In the 2010 Library and Book Trade Almanac
TM
, the 55th Edition, the article "How to Obtain
an ISSN" appears on pages 544-545, written by the United States ISSN Center. The article
explains that the ISSN was developed in the early 1970s to enable identification of serial
publications at the international level. Administration is coordinated through the ISSN
Network, an international intergovernmental organization within the UNESCO/UNISIST
program.The number itself -- unlike the coded digits of the ISBN -- has no significance other
than as a brief, unique, and unambiguous identifier; an ISSN consists of eight digits,
specifically two groups of four digits, in Arabic numerals 0 to 9, except for the last -- or
check -- digit, which can be an X. Its proper reference is for the two groups of four digits to
be separated by a hyphen and preceded by the letters ISSN.The ISSN is a U.S.
standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.9, and an international standard, recently updated to ISO 3297:
2007. This 2007 ISSN standard adds the Linking ISSN (ISSN-L), which works within several
established electronic information systems to link various media versions (print, online, CD-
ROM) of a single title together, allowing for fully complete media records of an individual
serial resource. Linking ISSNs are preceded by the letters ISSN-L.
Digital object identifier
A digital object identifier (DOI) is a character string (a "digital identifier") used to uniquely
identify an object such as an electronic document. Metadata about the object is stored in
association with the DOI name and this metadata may include a location, such as a URL,
where the object can be found. The DOI for a document remains fixed over the lifetime of the
document, whereas its location and other metadata may change. Referring to an online
document by its DOI provides more stable linking than simply referring to it by its URL,
because if its URL changes, the publisher need only update the metadata for the DOI to link
to the new URL.
[1][2][3]
A DOI name differs from standard identifier registries such as the
ISBN and ISRC. The purpose of an identifier registry is to manage a given collection of
identifiers, whereas the primary purpose of the DOI system is to make a collection of
identifiers actionable and interoperable.Organizations that meet the contractual obligations of
the DOI system and are willing to pay to become a member of the system can assign
DOIs.
[4]
The DOI system is implemented through a federation of registration agencies
coordinated by the International DOI Foundation,
[5]
which developed and controls the
system. The DOI system has been developed and implemented in a range of publishing
applications since 2000; by late April 2011 more than 50 million DOI names had been
assigned by some 4,000 organizations.
[6]
By April 2013 this number had grown to 85 million
DOI names assigned through 9,500 organizations. The DOI system uses, but is not formally
part of, the Handle System.
[7]

Nomenclature[edit]
A DOI name takes the form of a character string divided into two parts, a prefix and a suffix,
separated by a slash. The prefix identifies the registrant of the name, and the suffix is chosen
by the registrant and identifies the specific object associated with that DOI. Most
legal Unicode characters are allowed in these strings, which are interpreted in a case-
insensitive manner.For example, in the DOI name 10.1000/182, the prefix is 10.1000 and the
suffix is 182. The "10." part of the prefix identifies the DOI registry,
[A]
and the
characters 1000 in the prefix identify the registrant; in this case the registrant is the
International DOI Foundation itself. 182 is the suffix, or item ID, identifying a single object
(in this case, the latest version of the DOI Handbook). The official DOI Handbook explicitly
states that DOIs should display on screens and in print in the format "doi:10.1000/182".
[8][B]

DOI names can identify creative works (such as texts, images, audio or video items, and
software) in both electronic and physical forms, performances, and abstract works
[11]
such as
licenses, parties to a transaction, etc.The names can refer to objects at varying levels of detail:
thus DOI names can identify a journal, an individual issue of a journal, an individual article
in the journal, or a single table in that article. The choice of level of detail is left to the
assigner, but in the DOI system it must be declared as part of the metadata that is associated
with a DOI name, using a data dictionary based on the indecs Content Model.
Applications[edit]
Major applications of the DOI system currently include:
persistent citations in scholarly materials (journal articles, books, ebooks, etc.)
through CrossRef, a consortium of around 3,000 publishers;
research datasets through DataCite, a consortium of leading research libraries,
technical information providers, and scientific data centers;
European Union official publications through the EU publications office;
Permanent global identifiers for commercial video content through the Entertainment
ID Registry, commonly known as EIDR.
In the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's publication
service OECD iLibrary, each table or graph in an OECD publication is shown with a DOI
name that leads to an Excel file of data underlying the tables and graphs. Further
development of such services is planned.
[12]
A multilingual European DOI registration agency
activity, mEDRA, Traditional Chinese content thru Airiti Inc. and a Chinese registration
agency, Wanfang Data, are active in non-English language markets. Expansion to other
sectors is planned by the International DOI Foundation.
[citation needed]

Features and benefits[edit]
The DOI system was designed to provide a form of persistent identification, in which each
DOI name permanently and unambiguously identifies the object to which it is associated.
And, it associates metadata with objects, allowing it to provide users with relevant pieces of
information about the objects and their relationships. Included as part of this metadata are
network actions that allow DOI names to be resolved to web locations where the objects they
describe can be found. To achieve its goals, the DOI system combines the Handle System and
the indecs Content Model with a social infrastructure.The Handle System ensures that the
DOI name for an object is not based on any changeable attributes of the object such as its
physical location or ownership, that the attributes of the object are encoded in its metadata
rather than in its DOI name, and that no two objects are assigned the same DOI name.
Because DOI names are short character strings, they are human-readable, may be copied and
pasted as text, and fit into the URI specification. The DOI name resolution mechanism acts
behind the scenes, so that users communicate with it in the same way as with any other web
service; it is built on open architectures, incorporates trust mechanisms, and is engineered to
operate reliably and flexibly so that it can be adapted to changing demands and new
applications of the DOI system.
[13]
DOI name resolution may be used with OpenURL to
select the most appropriate among multiple locations for a given object, according to the
location of the user making the request.
[14]
However, despite this ability, the DOI system has
drawn criticism from librarians for directing users to non-free copies of documents that
would have been available for no additional fee from alternative locations.
[15]
The indecs
Content Model is used within the DOI system to associate metadata with objects. A small
kernel of common metadata is shared by all DOI names and can be optionally extended with
other relevant data, which may be public or restricted. Registrants may update the metadata
for their DOI names at any time, such as when publication information changes or when an
object moves to a different URL.The International DOI Foundation (IDF) oversees the
integration of these technologies and operation of the system through a technical and social
infrastructure. The social infrastructure of a federation of independent registration agencies
offering DOI services was modelled on existing successful federated deployments of
identifiers such as GS1 andISBN.
Comparison with other identifier schemes[edit]
A DOI name differs from commonly used Internet pointers to material, such as the Uniform
Resource Locator (URL), in that it identifies an object itself as a first-class entity, rather than
the specific place where the object is located at a certain time. It implements the Uniform
Resource Identifier (Uniform Resource Name) concept and adds to it a data model and social
infrastructure.
[16]
A DOI name also differs from standard identifier registries such as
the ISBN, ISRC, etc. The purpose of an identifier registry is to manage a given collection of
identifiers, whereas the primary purpose of the DOI system is to make a collection of
identifiers actionable and interoperable, where that collection can include identifiers from
many other controlled collections.
[17]
The DOI system offers persistent, semantically-
interoperable resolution to related current data and is best suited to material that will be used
in services outside the direct control of the issuing assigner (e.g., public citation or managing
content of value). It uses a managed registry (providing social and technical infrastructure). It
does not assume any specific business model for the provision of identifiers or services and
enables other existing services to link to it in defined ways. Several approaches for making
identifiers persistent have been proposed. The comparison of persistent identifier approaches
is difficult because they are not all doing the same thing. Imprecisely referring to a set of
schemes as "identifiers" doesn't mean that they can be compared easily. Other "identifier
systems" may be enabling technologies with low barriers to entry, providing an easy to use
labeling mechanism that allows anyone to set up a new instance (examples include Persistent
Uniform Resource Locator (PURL), URLs, Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs), etc.), but
may lack some of the functionality of a registry-controlled scheme and will usually lack
accompanying metadata in a controlled scheme. The DOI system does not have this approach
and should not be compared directly to such identifier schemes. Various applications using
such enabling technologies with added features have been devised that meet some of the
features offered by the DOI system for specific sectors (e.g., ARK).A DOI name does not
depend on the object's location and, in this way, is similar to a Uniform Resource Name
(URN) or PURL but differs from an ordinary URL. URLs are often used as substitute
identifiers for documents on the Internet (better characterised as Uniform Resource
Identifiers) although the same document at two different locations has two URLs. By
contrast, persistent identifiers such as DOI names identify objects as first class entities: two
instances of the same object would have the same DOI name.
Resolution[edit]
DOI name resolution is provided through the Handle System, developed by Corporation for
National Research Initiatives, and is freely available to any user encountering a DOI name.
Resolution redirects the user from a DOI name to one or more pieces of typed data: URLs
representing instances of the object, services such as e-mail, or one or more items of
metadata. To the Handle System, a DOI name is a handle, and so has a set of values assigned
to it and may be thought of as a record that consists of a group of fields. Each handle value
must have a data type specified in its "<type>" field, that defines the syntax and semantics of
its data.To resolve a DOI name, it may be input to a DOI resolver (e.g., at www.doi.org) or
may be represented as an HTTP string by preceding the DOI name by the string
http://dx.doi.org/ or just http://doi.org/
For example, the DOI name 10.1000/182 can be resolved at the address
"http://dx.doi.org/10.1000/182". Web pages or other hypertext documents can include
hypertext links in this form. Some browsers allow the direct resolution of a DOI (or other
handles) with an add-on, e.g., CNRI Handle Extension for Firefox. The CNRI Handle
Extension for Firefox enables the browser to access handle or DOI URIs like
hdl:4263537/4000 or doi:10.1000/1 using the native Handle System protocol. It will even
replace references to web-to-handle proxy servers with native resolution.
Organizational structure[edit]
The International DOI Foundation (IDF), a non-profit organisation created in 1998, is the
governance body of the DOI system.
[18]
It safeguards all intellectual property rights relating
to the DOI system, manages common operational features, and supports the development and
promotion of the DOI system. The IDF ensures that any improvements made to the DOI
system (including creation, maintenance, registration, resolution and policymaking of DOI
names) are available to any DOI registrant. It also prevents third parties from imposing
additional licensing requirements beyond those of the IDF on users of the DOI system.The
IDF is controlled by a Board elected by the members of the Foundation, with an appointed
Managing Agent who is responsible for co-ordinating and planning its activities. Membership
is open to all organizations with an interest in electronic publishing and related enabling
technologies. The IDF holds annual open meetings on the topics of DOI and related
issues.Registration agencies, appointed by the IDF, provide services to DOI registrants: they
allocate DOI prefixes, register DOI names, and provide the necessary infrastructure to allow
registrants to declare and maintain metadata and state data. Registration agencies are also
expected to actively promote the widespread adoption of the DOI system, to cooperate with
the IDF in the development of the DOI system as a whole, and to provide services on behalf
of their specific user community. A list of current RAs is maintained by the International DOI
Foundation.Registration agencies generally charge a fee to assign a new DOI name; parts of
these fees are used to support the IDF. The DOI system overall, through the IDF, operates on
a not-for-profit cost recovery basis.
Standardization[edit]
The DOI system is an international standard developed by the International Organization for
Standardization in its technical committee on identification and description,
TC46/SC9.
[19]
The Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 26324, Information and
documentation Digital Object Identifier System met the ISO requirements for approval. The
relevant ISO Working Group later submitted an edited version to ISO for distribution as an
FDIS (Final Draft International Standard) ballot,
[20]
which was approved by 100% of those
voting in a ballot closing on 15 November 2010.
[21]
The final standard was published on 23
April 2012.
[22]
DOI is a registered URI under the info URI scheme specified by IETF RFC
4452. info:doi/ is the infoURI Namespace of Digital Object Identifiers.
[23]
The DOI syntax is
a NISO standard, first standardised in 2000, ANSI/NISO Z39.84-2005 Syntax for the Digital
Object Identifier.
[24]

Impact factor
The impact factor (IF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number
of citations to recent articles published in the journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the
relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors
deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The impact factor was devised
byEugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information. Impact factors are
calculated yearly starting from 1975 for those journals that are indexed in the J ournal Citation
Reports.
Calculation[edit]
In any given year, the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received
per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years.
[1]
For example, if a journal
has an impact factor of 3 in 2008, then its papers published in 2006 and 2007 received 3
citations each on average in 2008. The 2008 impact factor of a journal would be calculated as
follows:
A =the number of times that all items published in that journal in 2006 and 2007 were cited
by indexed publications during 2008.
B =the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2006 and 2007. ("Citable
items" for this calculation are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or
letters to the editor).
2008 impact factor =A/B.
(Note that 2008 impact factors are actually published in 2009; they cannot be calculated until
all of the 2008 publications have been processed by the indexing agency.)New journals,
which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two
years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to Volume 1, and the number of
articles published in the year prior to Volume 1 are known zero values. J ournals that are
indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until
they have been indexed for three years. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes
publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a
specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period, and the Journal
Citation Reports (J CR) also includes a five-year impact factor.
[2]
The J CR shows rankings of
journals by impact factor, if desired by discipline, such as organic chemistry or psychiatry.
Use[edit]
The impact factor is used to compare different journals within a certain field. The ISI Web of
Knowledge indexes more than 11,000 science and social science journals.
[3][4]

Criticisms[edit]
Numerous criticisms have been made of the use of an impact factor. For one thing, the impact
factor might not be consistently reproduced in an independent audit.
[5]
There is a more
general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the
effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment
of readers and writers). In short, there is some controversy about the appropriate use of
impact factors.
[6]

Validity as a measure of importance[edit]
The impact factor is highly dependent on the academic discipline, possibly on the speed with
which papers get cited in a field. The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two
years after publication varies highly among disciplines from 1 3% in the mathematical and
physical sciences to 5 8% in the biological sciences.
[7]
Thus impact factors cannot be used to
compare journals across disciplines.The impact factor is based on the arithmetic
mean number of citations per paper, yet citation counts follow a Bradford distribution (i.e.,
a power law distribution) and therefore the arithmetic mean is a statistically inappropriate
measure.
[8]
For example, about 90% of Nature's 2004 impact factor was based on only a
quarter of its publications, and thus the importance of any one publication will be different
from, and in most cases less than, the overall number.
[9]
Furthermore, the strength of the
relationship between impact factors of journals and the citation rates of the papers therein has
been steadily decreasing since articles began to be available digitally.
[10]
This problem is
exacerbated when the use of impact factors is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but
the papers therein. The Higher Education Funding Council for Englandwas urged by
the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research
Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of
individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.
[11]
The effect
of outliers can be seen in the case of the article "A short history of SHELX", which included
this sentence: "This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the
open-source SHELX programs (and the Bruker AXS version SHELXTL) are employed in the
course of a crystal-structure determination". This article received more than 6,600 citations.
As a consequence, the impact factor of the journal ActaCrystallographica Section A rose
from 2.051 in 2008 to 49.926 in 2009, more than Nature (at 31.434) and Science (at
28.103).
[12]
The second-most cited article in ActaCrystallographica Section A in 2008 only
had 28 citations.
[13]
Finally, journal rankings constructed based solely on impact factors only
moderately correlate with those compiled from the results of expert surveys.
[14]
It is important
to note that impact factor is a journal metric and should not be used to assess individual
researchers or institutions.
[15][16]

Editorial policies that affect the impact factor[edit]
A journal can adopt editorial policies to increase its impact factor.
[17][18]
For example,
journals may publish a larger percentage of review articles which generally are cited more
than research reports.
[19]
Thus review articles can raise the impact factor of the journal and
review journals will therefore often have the highest impact factors in their respective
fields.
[20]
Some journal editors set their submissions policy to "by invitation only" to invite
exclusively senior scientists to publish "citable" papers to increase the journal impact
factor.
[20]
J ournals may also attempt to limit the number of "citable items" i.e., the
denominator of the impact factor equation either by declining to publish articles (such as
case reports in medical journals) that are unlikely to be cited or by altering articles (by not
allowing an abstract or bibliography) in hopes that Thomson Scientific will not deem it a
"citable item". As a result of negotiations over whether items are "citable", impact factor
variations of more than 300% have been observed.
[21]
Interestingly, items considered to be
uncitable and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations can, if cited, still
enter into the numerator part of the equation despite the ease with which such citations could
be excluded. This effect is hard to evaluate, for the distinction between editorial comment and
short original articles is not always obvious. For example, letters to the editor may refer to
either class.Another less insidious tactic journals employ is to publish a large portion of its
papers, or at least the papers expected to be highly cited, early in the calendar year. This gives
those papers more time to gather citations. Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious
intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's
impact factor.
[22][23]
Beyond editorial policies that may skew the impact factor, journals can
take overt steps to game the system. For example, in 2007, the specialist journal Folia
Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, with an impact factor of 0.66, published an editorial that cited all
its articles from 2005 to 2006 in a protest against the "absurd scientific situation in some
countries" related to use of the impact factor.
[24]
The large number of citations meant that the
impact factor for that journal increased to 1.44. As a result of the increase, the journal was not
included in the 2008 and 2009 J ournal Citation Reports.
[25]
Coercive citation is a practice in
which an editor forces an author to add spurious self-citations to an article before the journal
will agree to publish it in order to inflate the journal's impact factor. A survey published in
2012 indicates that coercive citation has been experienced by one in five researchers working
in economics, sociology, psychology, and multiple business disciplines, and it is more
common in business and in journals with a lower impact factor.
[26]
However, cases of
coercive citation have occasionally been reported for other scientific disciplines.
[27]

Responses[edit]
Because "the impact factor is not always a reliable instrument", in November 2007
the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issued an official statement
recommending "that journal impact factors are used only and cautiously for measuring
and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers,
and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".
[6]
In J uly 2008,
the International Council for Science (ICSU) Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in
the Conduct of Science (CFRS) issued a "statement on publication practices and indices and
the role of peer review in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions e.g.,
considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each
scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year e.g.,
more than 20.
[28]
In February 2010, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research
Foundation) published new guidelines to evaluate only articles and
no bibliometric information on candidates to be evaluated in all decisions concerning
"performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or
reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical
indicators such as the h-index and the impact factor".
[29]
This decision follows similar ones of
the National Science Foundation(US) and the Research Assessment Exercise (UK).
[citation
needed]
In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in
evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, the American Society for Cell
Biologytogether with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the San
Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Released in May of 2013, DORA
has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions who have
endorsed the document on the DORA website.
Some related values, also calculated and published by the same organization, include:
Immediacy index: the number of citations the articles in a journal receive in a given
year divided by the number of articles published
Cited half-life: the median age of the articles that were cited in J ournal Citation
Reports each year. For example, if a journal's half-life in 2005 is 5, that means the
citations from 2001-2005 are half of all the citations from that journal in 2005, and the
other half of the citations precede 2001
[30]

Aggregate impact factor for a subject category: it is calculated taking into account the
number of citations to all journals in the subject category and the number of articles
from all the journals in the subject category
Source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) is a factor released in 2012 by Elsevier to
estimate impact.
[31]
The measure is calculated as SNIP=RIP/(R/M), where RIP=raw
impact per paper, R =citation potential and M =median database citation potential.
[32]

These measures apply only to journals, not individual articles or individual scientists, unlike
the H-index. The relative number of citations an individual article receives is better viewed
as citation impact.It is, however, possible to examine the impact factor of the journals in
which a particular person has published articles. This use is widespread, but controversial.
Garfield warns about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation
from article to article within a single journal".
[33]
Impact factors have a large, but
controversial, influence on the way published scientific research is perceived and evaluated.
PageRank algorithm[edit]
In 1976 a recursive impact factor that gives citations from journals with high impact greater
weight than citations from low-impact journals was proposed.
[34]
Such a recursive impact
factor resembles Google's PageRank algorithm, though the original Pinski and Narin paper
uses a "trade balance" approach in which journals score highest when they are often cited but
rarely cite other journals; several scholars have proposed related approaches.
[35][36][37]
In
2006, Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Herbert Van de Sompel also proposed
replacing impact factors with the PageRank algorithm.
[38]
From their paper (based on 2003
data):
Rank Impact Factor (ISI IF) PageRank (PR
w
x 10
3
)
Combined (Y-factor x
10
2
)
1 52.28
Annual Review
of Immunology
17.46
J ournal of
Biological
Chemistry
51.15 Nature
2 37.65
Annual Review
of Biochemistry
16.51 Nature 47.72 Science
3 36.83
Physiological
Reviews
16.38 Science 19.92
The New
England J ournal
of Medicine
4 35.04
Nature Reviews
Molecular Cell
Biology
13.77
Proceedings of the
National Academy
of Sciences
14.36 Cell
5 34.83
The New
England J ournal
of Medicine
8.90
Physical Review
Letters
14.14
Proceedings of
the National
Academy of
Sciences
6 33.95
Nature Reviews
Cancer
5.93
Physical Review
B
11.32
J ournal of
Biological
Chemistry
7 33.06
CA A Cancer
J ournal for
Clinicians
5.72
The New England
J ournal of
Medicine
8.73
J ournal of the
American
Medical
Association
8 30.98 Nature 5.40
The Astrophysical
J ournal
7.83 The Lancet
9 30.55 Nature Medicine 5.39 Cell 7.22 Nature Genetics
10 30.17
Annual Review
of Neuroscience
4.90
J ournal of the
American
Chemical Society
6.26
Physical Review
Letters
The table shows the top 10 journals by Impact Factor, PageRank, and a modified system that
combines the two, all based on 2003 data.
[38]
The Eigenfactor is another PageRank-type
measure of journal influence,
[39]
with rankings freely available online.
[40]
So is SCImago.
Article-level metrics and altmetrics[edit]
Alternative metrics, or "altmetrics", often measure impact at an article level and include
article views, downloads, or mentions in social media.As early as 2004, the BMJ published
the number of views for its articles, which was found to be somewhat correlated to
citations.
[41]
In 2008 the J ournal of Medical Internet Researchbegan publishing views
and Tweets. These "tweetations" proved to be a good indicator of highly cited articles,
leading the author to propose a "Twimpact factor", which is the number of Tweets it receives
in the first seven days of publication, as well as a Twindex, which is the rank percentile of an
article's Twimpact factor.
[42]
Starting in March 2009, the Public Library of Science also
introduced article-level metrics for all articles.
[43]
Librarians and information scientists have
been evaluating journals for at least 75 years. Gross and Gross conducted a classic study of
citation patterns in the '20s.1 Others, including Estelle Brodman with her studies in the '40s of
physiology journals and subsequent reviews of the process, followed this lead.2However, the
advent of the Thomson Reuters citation indexes made it possible to do computer-compiled
statistical reports not only on the output of journals but also in terms of citation frequency.
And in the '60s we invented the journal "impact factor." After using journal statistical data in-
house to compile theScience Citation Index(SCI) for many years, Thomson Reuters
began to publish J ournal Citation Reports(J CR)3 in 1975 as part of the SCI and theSocial
Sciences Citation Index(SSCI).Informed and careful use of these impact data is essential.
Users may be tempted to jump to ill-formed conclusions based on impact factor statistics
unless several caveats are considered.The J CR provides quantitative tools for ranking,
evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a
measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year or period. The annual J CR impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent
citable items published. Thus, the impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the
number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the
previous two years (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Calculation for journal impact factor.
A=total cites in 1992
B=1992 cites to articles published in 1990-91 (this is a subset of A)
C=number of articles published in 1990-91
D=B/C =1992 impact factor
The impact factor is useful in clarifying the significance of absolute (or total) citation
frequencies. It eliminates some of the bias of such counts which favor large journals over
small ones, or frequently issued journals over less frequently issued ones, and of older
journals over newer ones. Particularly in the latter case such journals have a larger citable
body of literature than smaller or younger journals. All things being equal, the larger the
number of previously published articles, the more often a journal will be cited.4, 5There have
been many innovative applications of journal impact factors. The most common involve
market research for publishers and others. But, primarily,J CR provides librarians and
researchers with a tool for the management of library journal collections. In market research,
the impact factor provides quantitative evidence for editors and publishers for positioning
their journals in relation to the competition especially others in the same subject category,
in a vertical rather than a horizontal or intradisciplinary comparison. J CRdata may also
serve advertisers interested in evaluating the potential of a specific journal.Perhaps the most
important and recent use of impact is in the process of academic evaluation. The impact
factor can be used to provide a gross approximation of the prestige of journals in which
individuals have been published. This is best done in conjunction with other considerations
such as peer review, productivity, and subject specialty citation rates. As a tool for
management of library journal collections, the impact factor supplies the library administrator
with information about journals already in the collection and journals under consideration for
acquisition. These data must also be combined with cost and circulation data to make rational
decisions about purchases of journals.The impact factor can be useful in all of these
applications, provided the data are used sensibly. It is important to note that subjective
methods can be used in evaluating journals as, for example, by interviews or questionnaires.
In general, there is good agreement on the relative value of journals in the appropriate
categories. However, the J CR makes possible the realization that many journals do not fit
easily into established categories. Often, the only differentiation possible between two or
three small journals of average impact is price or subjective judgments such as peer
review.Thomson Reuters does not depend on the impact factor alone in assessing the
usefulness of a journal, and neither should anyone else. The impact factor should not be used
without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates, as for example
the average number of references cited in the average article. The impact factor should be
used with informed peer review. In the case of academic evaluation for tenure it is sometimes
inappropriate to use the impact of the source journal to estimate the expected frequency of a
recently published article. Again, the impact factor should be used with informed peer
review. Citation frequencies for individual articles are quite varied.There are many artifacts
that can influence a journal's impact and its ranking in journal lists, not the least of which is
the inclusion of review articles or letters. This is illustrated in a study of the leading medical
journals published in theAnnals of Internal Medicine. 6Review articles generally are cited
more frequently than typical research articles because they often serve as surrogates for
earlier literature, especially in journals that discourage extensive bibliographies. In
the J CR system any article containing more than 100 references is coded as a review. Articles
in "review" sections of research or clinical journals are also coded as reviews, as are articles
whose titles contain the word "review" or "overview."The Source Data Listing in the J CR not
only provides data on the number of reviews in each journal but also provides the average
number of references cited in that journal's articles. Naturally, review journals have some of
the highest impact factors. Often, the first-ranked journal in the subject category listings will
be a review journal. For example, under Biochemistry, the journal topping the list is Annual
Review of Biochemistry with an impact factor of 35.5 in 1992.It is widely believed that
methods articles attract more citations than other types of articles. However, this is not in fact
true. Many journals devoted entirely to methods do not achieve unusual impact. But it is true
that among the most cited articles in the literature there are some super classics that give this
overall impression. It should be noted that the chronological limitation on the impact
calculation eliminates the bias super classics might introduce. Absolute citation frequencies
are biased in this way, but, on occasion, a hot paper might affect the current impact of a
journal.Different specialties exhibit different ranges of peak impact. That is why
theJ CRprovides subject category listings. In this way, journals may be viewed in the
context of their specific field. Still, a five-year impact may be more useful to some users and
can be calculated by combining the statistical data available from consecutive years of
the J CR (see Figure 2). It is rare to find that theranking of a journal will change significantly
within its designated category unless the journal's influence has indeed changed.
Figure 2: Calculation for five-year impact factor:
One year of citations to five years of articles.
A=citations in 1992 to articles published in 1987-91
B=articles published in 1987-91
C=A/B =five-year impact factor
An alternative five-year impact can be calculated based on adding citations in 1988-92
articles published in the same five-year period. And yet another is possible by selecting one
or two earlier years as factor "B" above.While Thomson Reuters does manually code each
published source item, it is not feasible to code individually the 12 million references we
process each year. Therefore, journal citation counts in J CR do not distinguish between
letters, reviews, or original research. So, if a journal publishes a large number of letters, there
will usually be a temporary increase in references to those letters. Letters to the Lancet may
indeed be cited more often that letters to J AMA or vice versa, but the overall citation count
recorded would not take this artifact into account. Detailed computerized article-by-article
analyses or audits can be conducted to identify such artifacts.Some of the journals listed in
the J CR are not citing journals, but are cited-only journals. This is significant when
comparing journals by impact factor because the self-citations from a cited-only journal are
not included in its impact factor calculation. Self-citations often represent about 13% of the
citations that a journal receives. The cited-only journals with impact factors in
the J CR J ournal Rankings and Subject Category Listing may be ceased or suspended
journals, superseded titles, or journals that are covered in the science editions of Current
Contents, but not a citation index.Users can identify cited-only journals by checking
the J CR Citing J ournal Listing. Furthermore, users can establish analogous impact factors,
(excluding self-citations), for the journals they are evaluating using the data given in the
Citing J ournal Listing (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Calculation for impact factor revised to exclude self-
citations.
A=citations in 1992 to articles published in 1990-91
B=1992 self-citations to articles published in 1990-91
C=A - B =total citations minus self-citations to recent articles
D=number of articles published 1990-91
E=revised impact factor (C/D)
(see Table 1 for numerical example)
A user's knowledge of the content and history of the journal studied is very important for
appropriate interpretation of impact factors. Situations such as those mentioned above and
others such as title change are very important, and often misunderstood, considerations.A title
change affects the impact factor for two years after the change is made. The old and new
titles are not unified unless the titles are in the same position alphabetically. In the first year
after the title change, the impact is not available for the new title unless the data for old and
new can be unified. In the second year, the impact factor is split. The new title may rank
lower than expected and the old title may rank higher than expected because only one year of
source data is included in its calculation (see Figure 4). Title changes for the current year and
the previous year are listed in the J CRguide.
Figure 4: Unified 1992 impact factor calculation for title change.
A=1992 citations to articles published in 1990-91 (a1 +a2)
A1=those for new title
A2=those for superseded title
B=number of articles published in 1990-91 (B1 +B2)
B1=those for new title
B2=those for superseded title
C=unified impact factor (A/B)
C1=A1/B1 =J CRfactor for the new title
C2=A2/B2 =J CR factor for the superseded title
The impact factor is a very useful tool for evaluation of journals, but it must be used
discreetly. Considerations include the amount of review or other types of material published
in a journal, variations between disciplines, and item-by-item impact. The journal's status in
regard to coverage in the Thomson Reuters databases as well as the occurrence of a title
change are also very important. In the next essay we will look at some examples of how to
put tools for journal evaluation into use.
Dr. Eugene Garfield
Founder and Chairman Emeritus, ISI

Self-Citation study of journals in the Reproductive Systems category of the
1992 SCIJournal Citation Reports(J CR).
Table 1: Calculation of impact factors without self-citations.
Reproductive
Systems
J ournals

(A/D)
J CR
Impact
Factor
A
Cites in
1992 to
1990-
91
Articles
B
Self-
cites
in 1992
to
1990-
91
Articles
C
(A-B)
Minus
Self-
Cites
D
Articles
Published
1990-91
E
(C/D)
Revised
Impact
Factor
AM J
REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.931 224 54 170 116 1.466
ANIM
REPROD
SCI
0.701 110 23 87 157 0.554
BIOL
REPROD
3.257 726 265 461 530 2.757
EUR J
OBSTET
GYN R B
0.449 169 19 150 376 0.399
HUM
REPROD
1.328 627 * 627 472 1.328
INVERTEBR
REPROD
DEV
0.899 98 8 90 109 0.826
J REPROD
FERTIL
2.211 1287 209 1078 582 1.852
J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.442 137 20 117 95 1.232
MOL
REPROD
DEV
2.003 597 107 490 298 1.644
OXFORD
REV
REPROD B
1.765 30 * 30 17 1.765
REPROD
DOMEST
ANIM
0.565 39 2 37 69 0.536
REPROD
FERT
DEVELOP
1.493 221 40 181 148 1.223
REPROD
NUTR DEV
0.579 84 10 74 145 0.510
REPROD
TOXICOL
0.859 79 26 53 92 0.576
SEMIN
REPROD
ENDOCR
0.347 25 * 25 72 0.347
SEX PLANT
REPROD
1.659 136 38 98 82 1.195
* In 1992, Human Reproduction was not covered in a citation index, but has been added to
the Science Citation Index (SCI) for 1993. The 1992 issue of Oxford Reviews of
Reproductive Biology was not received in time to process its citations for Thomson Reuters
1992 database. Seminars in Reproductive Endocrinology is not covered in a citation index.

Table 2: Comparison of J CR impact factors to revised impact factors.
J ournals ranked by an impact factor J ournals ranked by J CR impact
factor:
calculated without self-
citations:
1 BIOL REPROD 3.257 BIOL REPROD 2.757
2 J REPROD FERTIL 2.211 J REPROD FERTIL 1.852
3 MOL REPROD DEV 2.003 OXFORD REV
REPROD B
1.765
4 AM J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.931 MOL REPROD DEV 1.644
5 OXFORD REV
REPROD B
1.765 AM J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.466
6 SEX PLANT
REPROD
1.659 HUM REPROD 1.328
7 REPROD FERT
DEVELOP
1.493 J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.232
8 J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.442 REPROD FERT
DEVELOP
1.223
9 HUM REPROD 1.328 SEX PLANT
REPROD
1.195
10 INVERTEBR
REPROD DEV
0.899 INVERTEBR
REPROD DEV
0.826
11 REPROD TOXICOL 0.859 REPROD TOXICOL 0.576
12 ANIM REPROD SCI 0.701 ANIM REPROD SCI 0.554
13 REPROD NUTR DEV 0.579 REPROD DOMEST
ANIM
0.536
14 REPROD DOMEST
ANIM
0.565 REPROD NUTR DEV 0.510
15 EUR J OBSTET GYN
R B
0.449 EUR J OBSTET GYN
R B
0.399
16 SEMIN REPROD
ENDOCR
0.347 SEMIN REPROD
ENDOCR
0.347
Citation
Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the
original source). More precisely, a citation is an abbreviated alphanumeric expression
embedded in the body of an intellectual work that denotes an entry in the bibliographic
references section of the work for the purpose of acknowledging the relevance of the works
of others to the topic of discussion at the spot where the citation appears. Generally the
combination of both the in-body citation and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is
commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not).
References to single, machine-readable assertions in electronic scientific articles are known
as nanopublications, a form of microattribution.Citation has several important purposes: to
uphold intellectual honesty (or avoiding plagiarism),
[1]
to attribute prior or unoriginal work
and ideas to the correct sources, to allow the reader to determine independently whether the
referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way, and to help the reader
gauge the strength and validity of the material the author has used.
[2]
The forms of citations
generally subscribe to one of the generally accepted citations systems, such as the
Oxford,
[3]
Harvard, MLA, American Sociological Association (ASA), American
Psychological Association (APA), and other citations systems, as their syntactic conventions
are widely known and easily interpreted by readers. Each of these citation systems has its
respective advantages and disadvantages relative to the trade-offs of being informative (but
not too disruptive) and thus are chosen relative to the needs of the type of publication being
crafted. Editors often specify the citation system to use.Bibliographies, and other list-like
compilations of references, are generally not considered citations because they do not fulfil
the true spirit of the term: deliberate acknowledgement by other authors of the priority of
one's ideas.
[4]

Concepts[edit]
A bibliographic citation is a reference to a book, article, web page, or other published
item. Citations should supply detail to identify the item uniquely.
[5]
Different citation
systems and styles are used in scientific citation, legal citation, prior art, and the
arts and the humanities.
Content[edit]
Citation content can vary depending on the type of source and may include:
Book: author(s), book title, publisher, date of publication, and page number(s) if
appropriate.
[6][7]

J ournal: author(s), article title, journal title, date of publication, and page number(s).
Newspaper: author(s), article title, name of newspaper, section title and page
number(s) if desired, date of publication.
Web site: author(s), article and publication title where appropriate, as well as a URL,
and a date when the site was accessed.
Play: inline citations offer part, scene, and line numbers, the latter separated by
periods: 4.452 refers to scene 4, line 452. For example, "In Eugene Onegin, Onegin
rejects Tanya when she is free to be his, and only decides he wants her when she is
already married" (Pushkin 4.452-53).
[8]

Poem: spaced slashes are normally used to indicate separate lines of a poem,
and parenthetical citations usually include the line number(s). For example: "For I
must love because I live / And life in me is what you give." (Brennan, lines 15 16).
[8]

Interview: name of interviewer, interview descriptor (ex. personal interview) and date
of interview.
Unique identifiers[edit]
Along with information such as author(s), date of publication, title and page numbers,
citations may also include unique identifiers depending on the type of work being referred to.
Citations of books may include an International Standard Book Number (ISBN).
Specific volumes, articles or other identifiable parts of a periodical, may have an
associated Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI).
Electronic documents may have a digital object identifier (DOI).
Biomedical research articles may have a PubMed Identifier (PMID).
Systems[edit]
Broadly speaking, there are two types of citation systems (the Vancouver
system and parenthetical referencing).
[9]
However, the Council of Science Editors (CSE) adds
a third, thecitation-name system.
[10]

Vancouver system[edit]
The Vancouver system uses sequential numbers in the text, either bracketed or superscript or
both.
[9]
The numbers refer to either footnotes (notes at the end of the page) or endnotes (notes
on a page at the end of the paper) that provide source detail. The notes system may or may
not require a full bibliography, depending on whether the writer has used a full-note form or a
shortened-note form.
For example, an excerpt from the text of a paper using a notes system without a full
bibliography could look like:
"The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance."
1

The note, located either at the foot of the page (footnote) or at the end of the paper (endnote)
would look like this:
1. Elisabeth Kbler-Ross, On Death and Dying (New York: Macmillan, 1969) 45 60.
In a paper with a full bibliography, the shortened note might look like:
1. Kbler-Ross, On Death and Dying 45 60.
The bibliography entry, which is required with a shortened note, would look like this:
Kbler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan, 1969.
In the humanities, many authors also use footnotes or endnotes to supply anecdotal
information. In this way, what looks like a citation is actually supplementary material, or
suggestions for further reading.
[11]

Parenthetical referencing[edit]
Parenthetical referencing, also known as Harvard referencing, has full or partial, in-text,
citations enclosed in parentheses and embedded in the paragraph.
[9]

An example of a parenthetical reference:
"The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance"(Kbler-
Ross,1969, p 45 60).
Depending on the choice of style, fully cited parenthetical references may require no end
section. Other styles include a list of the citations, with complete bibliographical references,
in an end section, sorted alphabetically by author. This section is often called "References,"
"Bibliography," "Works cited," or "Works consulted."
In-text references for online publications may differ from conventional parenthetical
referencing. A full reference can be hidden, only displayed when wanted by the reader, in the
form of a tooltip.
[12]
This style makes citing easier and improves the reader's experience.
Citation-name system[edit]
Superscripted numbers are inserted at the point of reference, just as in the citation sequence
system, but the citations are numbered according to the order of cited works at the end of the
paper or book; this list is often sorted alphabetically by author.
Citation styles can be broadly divided into styles common to the Humanities and the
Sciences, though there is considerable overlap. Some style guides, such as the Chicago
Manual of Style, are quite flexible and cover both parenthetical and note citation systems.
Others, such as MLA and APA styles, specify formats within the context of a single citation
system. These may be referred to as citation formats as well as citation styles.
[13][14][15]
The
various guides thus specify order of appearance, for example, of publication date, title, and
page numbers following the author name, in addition to conventions of punctuation, use of
italics, emphasis, parenthesis, quotation marks, etc., particular to their style A number of
organizations have created styles to fit their needs; consequently, a number of different
guides exist. Individual publishers often have their own in-house variations as well, and some
works are so long-established as to have their own citation methods too:Stephanus
pagination for Plato; Bekker numbers for Aristotle; citing the Bible by book, chapter and
verse; or Shakespeare notation by play,
Humanities[edit]
The Chicago Style (CMOS) was developed and its guide is The Chicago Manual of
Style. It is most widely used in history and economics as well as some social sciences.
The closely related Turabian style which derives from it is for student references,
and is distinguished from the CMOS by omission of quotation marks in reference
lists, and mandatory access date citation.
The Columbia Style was created by J anice R. Walker and Todd Taylor to give
detailed guidelines for citing internet sources. Columbia Style offers models for both
the humanities and the sciences.
Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace by
Elizabeth Shown Mills covers primary sources not included in CMOS, such as
censuses, court, land, government, business, and church records. Includes sources in
electronic format. Used by genealogists and historians.
[16]

Harvard referencing (or author-date system) is a specific kind of parenthetical
referencing. Parenthetical referencing is recommended by both the British Standards
Institution and the Modern Language Association. Harvard referencing involves a
short author-date reference, e.g., "(Smith, 2000)", being inserted after the cited text
within parentheses and the full reference to the source being listed at the end of the
article.
MLA style was developed by the Modern Language Association and is most often
used in the arts and the humanities, particularly in English studies, other literary
studies, including comparative literature and literary criticism in languages other than
English ("foreign languages"), and some interdisciplinary studies, such as cultural
studies, dramaand theatre, film, and other media, including television. This style of
citations and bibliographical format uses parenthetical referencing with author-page
(Smith 395) or author-[short] title-page (Smith, Contingencies 42) in the case of more
than one work by the same author within parentheses in the text, keyed to an
alphabetical list of sources on a "Works Cited" page at the end of the paper, as well as
notes (footnotes or endnotes). See The MLA Style Manual and The MLA Handbook
for Writers of Research Papers, particularly Citation and bibliography format.
[a]

The MHRA Style Guide is published by the Modern Humanities Research
Association (MHRA) and most widely used in the arts and humanities in the United
Kingdom, where the MHRA is based. It is available for sale both in the UK and in
the United States. It is similar to MLA style, but has some differences. For example,
MHRA style uses footnotes that reference a citation fully while also providing a
bibliography. Some readers find it advantageous that the footnotes provide full
citations, instead of shortened references, so that they do not need to consult the
bibliography while reading for the rest of the publication details.
[17]

In some areas of the Humanities, footnotes are used exclusively for references, and their use
for conventional footnotes (explanations or examples) is avoided. In these areas, the term
"footnote" is actually used as a synonym for "reference", and care must be taken by editors
and typesetters to ensure that they understand how the term is being used by their authors.
Law[edit]
Main article: Legal citation
The Bluebook is a citation system traditionally used in American academic legal
writing, and the Bluebook (or similar systems derived from it) are used by many
courts.
[18]
At present, academic legal articles are always footnoted, but motions
submitted to courts and court opinions traditionally use inline citations, which are
either separate sentences or separate clauses. Inline citations allow readers to quickly
determine the strength of a source based on, for example, the court a case was decided
in and the year it was decided.
The legal citation style used almost universally in Canada is based on the Canadian
Guide to Uniform Legal Citation (aka McGill Guide), published by McGill Law
J ournal.
[19]

British legal citation almost universally follows the Oxford Standard for Citation of
Legal Authorities (OSCOLA).
Sciences, mathematics, engineering, physiology, and medicine[edit]
Main article: Scientific citation
The American Chemical Society style, or ACS style, is often used in chemistry and
some of the physical sciences. In ACS style references are numbered in the text and in
the reference list, and numbers are repeated throughout the text as needed.
In the style of the American Institute of Physics (AIP style), references are also
numbered in the text and in the reference list, with numbers repeated throughout the
text as needed.
Styles developed for the American Mathematical Society (AMS), or AMS styles, such
as AMS-LaTeX, are typically implemented using the BibTeX tool in
the LaTeX typesetting environment. Brackets with author's initials and year are
inserted in the text and at the beginning of the reference. Typical citations are listed
in-line with alphabetic-label format, e.g. [AB90]. This type of style is also called a
"Authorship trigraph."
The Vancouver system, recommended by the Council of Science Editors (CSE), is
used in medical and scientific papers and research.
In one major variant, that used by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), citation numbers are included in the text in square
brackets rather than as superscripts. All bibliographical information is
exclusively included in the list of references at the end of the document, next
to the respective citation number.
The International Committee of Medical J ournal Editors (ICMJ E) is
reportedly the original kernel of this biomedical style, which evolved from the
Vancouver 1978 editors' meeting.
[20]
The MEDLINE/PubMed database uses
this citation style and the National Library of Medicine provides
"ICMJ E Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
J ournals -- Sample References".
[21]

The style of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or IEEE
style, encloses citation numbers within square brackets and numbers them
consecutively, with numbers repeated throughout the text as needed.
[22]

Pechenik Citation Style is a style described in A Short Guide to Writing about
Biology, 6th ed. (2007), by J an A. Pechenik.
[23]

In 2006, Eugene Garfield proposed a bibliographic system for scientific literature, to
consolidate the integrity of scientific publications.
[24]

Social sciences[edit]
The style of the American Psychological Association, or APA style, published in
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, is most often
used in social sciences. APA style uses Harvard referencing within the text, listing the
author's name and year of publication, keyed to an alphabetical list of sources at the
end of the paper on a References page.
The American Political Science Association publishes both a style manual and a style
guide for publications in this field.
[25]
The style is close to the CMOS.
The American Anthropological Association utilizes a modified form of the Chicago
Style laid out in their Publishing Style Guide.
The ASA style of American Sociological Association is one of the main styles used
in sociological publications.
Boundary marks[edit]
In the case of direct citations, the boundaries of a citation are apparent from the quotation
marks. However, the boundaries of indirect citations are usually unknown. To clarify these
boundaries, citation marks ( ) can be used. Example:
This is sentence 1. This is sentence 2. This is sentence 3. (Smith et al., 2013)
Here, it becomes apparent from the citation marks that the citation refers to both sentence 2
and 3, but not to sentence 1.
Issues[edit]
In their research on footnotes in scholarly journals in the field of communication, Michael
Bugeja and Daniela V. Dimitrova have found that citations to online sources have a rate of
decay (as cited pages are taken down), which they call a "half-life," that renders footnotes in
those journals less useful for scholarship over time.
[26]

Other experts have found that published replications do not have as many citations as original
publications.
[27]

Another important issue is citation errors, which often occur due to carelessness on either the
researcher or journal editor's part in the publication procedure. Experts have found that
simple precautions, such as consulting the author of a cited source about proper citations,
reduce the likelihood of citation errors and thus increase the quality of research.
[28]

Research suggests the number of citations an article receives can be, partly, explained by
superficial factors and not only by the scientific merits of an article. For instance in Medicine
among other factors the number of authors, the number of references, the article length, and
the presence of a colon in the title influence the impact. Whilst in Sociology the number of
references, the article length, and title length are among the factors.
[29]

Citation patterns are also known to be affected by unethical behavior of both the authors and
journal staff. Such behavior is called impact factor boosting, and was reported to involve
even the top-tier journals. Specifically the high-ranking journals of medical science,
including the Lancet, J AMA and New England J ournal of Medicine, are thought to be
associated with such behavior, with up to 30% of citations to these journals being generated
by commissioned opinion articles
[30]

g-index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The g-index is an index for quantifying scientific productivity based on publication record. It
was suggested in 2006 by Leo Egghe.
[1]

The index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's
publications:
Given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they
received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received
(together) at least g
2
citations.
J ust as with the h-index, the g-index is a number which is the same for two different
quantities:
g is (1) the number of highly cited articles, such that each of them has brought (2) on average
g citations.
This is in fact a rewriting of the definition

as


An example of a g-index (the raw citation data, plotted with stars, allows the h-index to also
be extracted for comparison).
In other words, this means that in order to have a g-index of n an author that produces n
articles should have, on average, n citations for each of them. Unlike the h-index, the g-index
depends on the full citation count of very highly cited papers. Roughly, h is the number of
papers of a quality threshold that rises as h rises; g allows citations from higher-cited papers
to be used to bolster lower-cited papers in meeting this threshold. Therefore, in all cases g is
at least h, and is in most cases higher.
[1]
However, unlike the h-index, the g-index saturates
whenever the average number of citations for all published papers exceeds the total number
of published papers; the way it is defined, the g-index is not adapted to this situation.
The g-index has been characterized in terms of three natural axioms by Woeginger
(2008).
[2]
The simplest of these three axioms states that by moving citations from weaker
articles to stronger articles, one's research index should not decrease. Like the h-index, the g-
index is a natural number and thus lacks in discriminatory power. Therefore, Tol (2008)
proposed a rational generalisation.
[3][clarification needed]

Tol also proposed a collective g-index.
Given a set of researchers ranked in decreasing order of their g-index, the g
1
-index is the
(unique) largest number such that the top g
1
researchers have on average at least a g-index of
g
1
.
See also[edit]
h index corresponds to a scientist's h of his/her N papers that have been cited at least h times
each, while the rest of the N papers have less than h citations each.

i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.

For the citations received and given a number of papers ranked in a decreasing order
according to the citations received till now, the G-index is the biggest number such that the
top G articles received (altogether) at least G2 (G square) citations. This index assists the h-
index and gives more weight to the highly-cited papers.

The references provided in the previous answers by other colleagues help to see more details.

Kind regards
I think publication indexes appear to measure the impact of a scientific work (mostly article)
to other scientific works in general. Impact factor is using to measure a "journal"s impact, on
the other hand some indexes like H-Index are using an "article"s or "author"s impact. Indexes
can be created with various approaches and visions by different institutions, companies or
scientific organizations. I10-Index and G-Index have created to quantify scientific
productivity based on publication record mainly - like ResearcherGate's RG Score (index
about the researcher's impact). You can view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor for
more detailed description about impact factor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I10-index for I10-
Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-index for G-Index andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-
index for H-Index.
The h-index proposed by J orge Hirsch in 2005.
The g-index was suggested by Leo Egghe in 2006.
For more details one should go through following articles.
(1) Leo Egghe "Theory and practise of the g-index", Scintometrics, Vol. 69 No. 1 (2006)
131-152
http://sci2s.ugr.es/hindex/pdf/Egghe2006.pdf
(2) Leo Egghe "AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE H-INDEX: THE G-
INDEX"http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200703/08/11/g_index.pdf
(3) RODRIGO COSTAS, MARA BORDONS "Is g-index better than h-index? An
exploratory study at the individual level" Scientometrics, Vol. 77, No. 2 (2008) 267 288
h index corresponds to a scientist's h of his/her N papers that have been cited at least h times
each, while the rest of the N papers have less than h citations each.

i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.

For the citations received and given a number of papers ranked in a decreasing order
according to the citations received till now, the G-index is the biggest number such that the
top G articles received (altogether) at least G2 (G square) citations. This index assists the h-
index and gives more weight to the highly-cited papers.

The references provided in the previous answers by other colleagues help to see more details.

Kind regards
h-index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the index of scientific research impact. For the economic measure,
see Herfindahl index.
The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of
the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's
most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications.
The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists, such as
a department or university or country, as well as a scholarly journal. The index was suggested
in 2005 by J orge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UCSD, as a tool for determining theoretical
physicists' relative quality
[1]
and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.
Definition and purpose[edit]

h-index from a plot of decreasing citations for numbered papers
The index is based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's
publications. Hirsch writes:
A scientist has index h if h of his/her N
p
papers have at least h citations each, and the other
(N
p
h) papers have no more than h citations each.
In other words, a scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been
cited in other papers at least htimes.
[2]
Thus, the h-index reflects both the number of
publications and the number of citations per publication. The index is designed to improve
upon simpler measures such as the total number of citations or publications. The index works
properly only for comparing scientists working in the same field; citation conventions differ
widely among different fields.
The h-index serves as an alternative to more traditional journal impact factor metrics in the
evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular researcher. Because only the most highly
cited articles contribute to the h-index, its determination is a simpler process. Hirsch has
demonstrated that h has high predictive value for whether a scientist has won honors
like National Academy membership or the Nobel Prize. The h-index grows as citations
accumulate and thus it depends on the "academic age" of a researcher.
The h-index across disciplines and career levels[edit]
Hirsch suggested (with large error bars) that, for physicists, a value for h of about 12 might
be typical for advancement to tenure (associate professor) at major research universities. A
value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15 20 could mean a fellowship in
the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States
National Academy of Sciences.
[3]

The London School of Economics found that professors in the social sciences had average h-
indices ranging from 2.8 (in law) to 7.6 (in economics).
[4]

Among the 22 scientific disciplines listed in the Thomson Reuters Essential Science
Indicators Citation Thresholds, physics has the second most citations after space
science.
[5]
During the period J anuary 1, 2000 February 28, 2010, a physicist had to receive
2073 citations to be among the most cited 1% of physicists in the world.
[5]
The threshold for
space science is the highest (2236 citations), and physics is followed by clinical medicine
(1390) and molecular biology & genetics (1229). Most disciplines, such as
environment/ecology (390), have fewer scientists, fewer papers, and fewer
citations.
[5]
Therefore, these disciplines have lower citation thresholds in the Essential
Science Indicators, with the lowest citation thresholds observed in social sciences (154),
computer science (149), and multidisciplinary sciences (147).
[5]

Little systematic investigation has been made on how academic recognition correlates with h-
index over different institutions, nations and fields of study. However, Hirsch estimates that
after 20 years a "successful scientist" will have an h-index of 20, an "outstanding scientist" an
h-index of 40, and a "truly unique" individual an h-index of 60. However, he points out that
values of h will vary between different fields.
[6]

For the most highly cited scientists in the period 1983 2002, Hirsch identified the top 10 in
the life sciences (in order of decreasing h): Solomon H. Snyder, h =191; David Baltimore,h =
160; Robert C. Gallo, h =154; Pierre Chambon, h =153; Bert Vogelstein, h =151; Salvador
Moncada, h =143; Charles A. Dinarello, h =138; TadamitsuKishimoto, h =134;Ronald M.
Evans, h =127; and Axel Ullrich, h =120. Among 36 new inductees in the National Academy
of Sciences in biological and biomedical sciences in 2005, the median h-index was 57.
[1]

Calculation[edit]
The h-index can be manually determined using citation databases or using automatic tools.
Subscription-based databases such as Scopus and the Web of Knowledge provide automated
calculators. Harzing's Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on Google
Scholar entries. In J uly 2011 Google trialled a tool which allows scholars to keep track of
their own citations and also produces an h-index and an i10-index.
[7]
Each database is likely
to produce a different h for the same scholar, because of different coverage: Google Scholar
has more citations than Scopus and Web of Science but the smaller citation collections tend
to be more accurate.
[citation needed]
In addition, specific databases, such as the INSPIRE-
HEP database can automatically calculate the h-index for researchers working in high energy
physics.
A detailed study showed that the Web of Knowledge has strong coverage of journal
publications, but poor coverage of high impact conferences. Scopus has better coverage of
conferences, but poor coverage of publications prior to 1996; Google Scholar has the best
coverage of conferences and most journals (though not all), but like Scopus has limited
coverage of pre-1990 publications.
[8][9]
The exclusion of conference proceedings papers is a
particular problem for scholars in computer science, where conference proceedings are
considered an important part of the literature.
[10]
Google Scholar has been criticized for
producing "phantom citations," including gray literature in its citation counts, and failing to
follow the rules of Boolean logic when combining search terms.
[11]
For example, the Meho
and Yang study found that Google Scholar identified 53% more citations than Web of
Knowledge and Scopus combined, but noted that because most of the additional citations
reported by Google Scholar were from low-impact journals or conference proceedings, they
did not significantly alter the relative ranking of the individuals. It has been suggested that in
order to deal with the sometimes wide variation in h for a single academic measured across
the possible citation databases, one should assume false negatives in the databases are more
problematic than false positives and take the maximum h measured for an academic.
[12]

Advantages[edit]
Hirsch intended the h-index to address the main disadvantages of other bibliometric
indicators, such as total number of papers or total number of citations. Total number of
papers does not account for the quality of scientific publications, while total number of
citations can be disproportionately affected by participation in a single publication of major
influence (for instance, methodological papers proposing successful new techniques, methods
or approximations, which can generate a large number of citations), or having many
publications with few citations each. The h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the
quality and quantity of scientific output.
Criticism[edit]
There are a number of situations in which h may provide misleading information about a
scientist's output:
[13]
(However, most of these are not exclusive to the h-index.)
The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. In the original
paper, Hirsch suggested partitioning citations among co-authors. Even in the absence
of explicit gaming, the h-index and similar indexes tend to favor fields with larger
groups, e.g. experimental over theoretical.
The h-index does not account for the typical number of citations in different fields.
Different fields, or journals, traditionally use different numbers of citations.
The h-index discards the information contained in author placement in the authors'
list, which in some scientific fields is significant.
[14][15]

The h-index is bounded by the total number of publications. This means that scientists
with a short career are at an inherent disadvantage, regardless of the importance of
their discoveries. For example, variste Galois' h-index is 2, and will remain so
forever. Had Albert Einstein died after publishing his four groundbreaking Annus
Mirabilis papers in 1905, his h-index would be stuck at 4 or 5. This is also a problem
for any measure that relies on the number of publications. However, as Hirsch
indicated in the original paper, the index is intended as a tool to evaluate researchers
in the same stage of their careers. It is not meant as a tool for historical comparisons.
The h-index does not consider the context of citations. For example, citations in a
paper are often made simply to flesh out an introduction, otherwise having no other
significance to the work. h also does not resolve other contextual instances: citations
made in a negative context and citations made to fraudulent or retracted work. This is
also a problem for regular citation counts.
The h-index gives books the same count as articles making it difficult to compare
scholars in fields that are more book-oriented such as the humanities.
The h-index does not account for confounding factors such as "gratuitous authorship",
the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review
articles. Again, this is a problem for all other metrics using publications or citations.
The h-index has been found to have slightly less predictive accuracy and
precision than the simpler measure of mean citations per paper.
[16]
However, this
finding was contradicted by another study.
[17]

The h-index is a natural number which reduces its discriminatory
power. Ruane and Tol therefore propose a rational h-index that interpolates
between h and h +1.
[18]

The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations,
[19][20]
and if based on Google
Scholar output, then even computer-generated documents can be used for that
purpose, e.g. using SCIgen.
[21]

Alternatives and modifications[edit]
Various proposals to modify the h-index in order to emphasize different features have been
made.
[22][23][24][25][26][27]
As the variants have proliferated, comparative studies have become
possible and they demonstrate that most proposals do not differ significantly from the
original h-index as they remain highly correlated with it.
[28]

An individual h-index normalized by the average number of co-authors in the h-core
has been proposed.
[22]
It was found that the distribution of the h-index, although it
depends on the field, can be normalized by a simple rescaling factor. For example,
assuming as standard the hs for biology, the distribution of h for mathematics collapse
with it if this h is multiplied by three, that is, a mathematician with h =3 is equivalent
to a biologist with h =9. This method has not been readily adopted, perhaps because
of its complexity. It might be simpler to divide citation counts by the number of
authors before ordering the papers and obtaining the h-index, as originally suggested
by Hirsch.
The m-index is defined as h/n, where n is the number of years since the first published
paper of the scientist;
[1]
also called m-quotient.
[29][30]

A generalization of the h-index and some other indices that gives additional
information about the shape of the author's citation function (heavy-tailed,
flat/peaked, etc.) has been proposed.
[31]

A successive Hirsch-type-index for institutions has also been devised.
[32][33]
A
scientific institution has a successive Hirsch-type-index of i when at least i researchers
from that institution have an h-index of at least i.
Three additional metrics have been proposed: h
2
lower, h
2
center, and h
2
upper, to
give a more accurate representation of the distribution shape. The three h
2
metrics
measure the relative area within a scientist's citation distribution in the low impact
area, h
2
lower, the area captured by the h-index, h
2
center, and the area from
publications with the highest visibility, h
2
upper. Scientists with high h
2
upper
percentages are perfectionists, whereas scientists with high h
2
lower percentages are
mass producers. As these metrics are percentages, they are intended to give a
qualitative description to supplement the quantitative h-index.
[34]

The g-index can be seen as the h-index for an averaged citations count.
[35]

It has been argued that "For an individual researcher, a measure such as ErdOs
number captures the structural properties of network whereas the h-index captures the
citation impact of the publications. One can be easily convinced that ranking in
coauthorship networks should take into account both measures to generate a realistic
and acceptable ranking." Several author ranking systems such as eigenfactor (based
on eigenvector centrality) have been proposed already, for instance the Phys Author
Rank Algorithm.
[36]

The c-index accounts not only for the citations but for the quality of the citations in
terms of the collaboration distance between citing and cited authors. A scientist has c-
index n ifn of [his/her] N citations are from authors which are at collaboration
distance at least n, and the other (N n) citations are from authors which are at
collaboration distance at mostn.
[37]

An s-index, accounting for the non-entropic distribution of citations, has been
proposed and it has been shown to be in a very good correlation with h.
[38]

The e-index, the square root of surplus citations for the h-set beyond h
2
, complements
the h-index for ignored citations, and therefore is especially useful for highly cited
scientists and for comparing those with the same h-index (isohindex group).
[39][40]

Because the h-index was never meant to measure future publication success, recently,
a group of researchers has investigated the features that are most predictive of
future h-index. It is possible to try the predictions using an online tool.
[41]
However,
later work has shown that since h-index is a cumulative measure, it contain intrinsic
auto-correlation that led to significant overestimation of its predictability. Thus, the
true predictability of future h-index is much lower compared to what has been
claimed before.
[42]

The h-index has been applied to Internet Media, such as YouTube channels. The h-
index is defined as the number of videos with h10
5
views. When compared with a
video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both
productivity and impact in a single metric.
[43]

The i10-index is a measure developed by Google Scholar. It is the number of
publications with at least ten citations.