Acharya et al:
attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time.For the first question they observe that:
The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64%. Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45% or more.and for the second that:
Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27% in 1995 to 47% in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50% of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.They summarize their method as:
We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite.In a post to liblicense, Ann Okerson asks:
- Any thoughts about the validity of the findings? Google has access to high-quality data, so it is unlikely that they are significantly mis-characterizing journals or papers.They examine the questions separately in each of their 261 subject categories, and re-evaluate the top-ranked papers and journals each year.
- Do they take into account the overall growth of article publishing in the time frame examined? Their method excludes all but the most-cited 1000 papers in each year, so they consider a decreasing fraction of the total output each year:
- The first question asks what fraction of the top-ranked papers appear in top-ranked journals, so the total volume of papers is irrelevant.
- The second question asks what fraction of all citations (from all journals, not just the top 1000) are to top-ranked journals. Increasing the number of articles published doesn't affect the proportion of them in a given year that cite top-ranked journals.
- What's really going on here? Across all fields, the top-ranked 10 journals in their respective fields contain a gradually but significantly decreasing fraction of the papers subsequently cited. Across all fields, a gradually but significantly decreasing fraction of citations are to the top-ranked 10 journals in their respective fields. This means that authors of cite-worthy papers are decreasingly likely to publish in, read from, and cite papers in their field's top-ranked journals. In other words, whatever value that top-ranked journals add to the papers they publish is decreasingly significant to authors.
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (general): Nature, Science, PNAS
- Health & Medical Sciences (general): NEJM, Lancet, PNAS
- Cell Biology: Cell
- Molecular Biology: Cell
- Oncology: Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Chemical & Material Sciences (general): Chemical Reviews, Journal of the American Chemical Society
- Physics & Mathematics (general): Physical Review Letters
Lets look at this another way. No matter how well their work is regarded by others in their field, researchers in the vast majority of fields have no prospect of ever publishing in a global top-10 journal because those journals effectively don't publish papers in those fields. And if they ever did, the paper is likely to be junk, as illustrated by my favorite example, because the global top-10 journal's stable of reviewers don't work in that field. The global top-10 journals are important to librarians, because they look at scholarly communication from the top down, to publishers, because they are important to librarians so they anchor the "big deals", and to researchers in a small number of important fields. To every one else, they may be interesting but they are not important.
Acharya et al conclude:
First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues.Both seem right to me, which reinforces the message that, even on a per-field basis, highly rated journals are not adding as much value as they did in the past (which was much less than commonly thought). Authors of other papers are the ultimate judge of the value of a paper (they are increasingly awarding citations to papers published elsewhere), and of the value of a journal (they are increasingly publishing work that other authors value elsewhere).
Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere.
Steven Levy at medium.com has a long profile of Anurag Acharya.
The idea that top-ranked journals both add and subtract value is often received skeptically. Here's just one example from the literature showing that this result is well-established.
The editors of Infection and Immunity in 2011 reflected on a spate of recent retractions and wrote a paper Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. They conclude:
"Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor."
For a more radical take on this effect, see my blog post Journals Considered Harmful.
Of course, everyone makes mistakes, but this example of the lack of publisher added value is too good to overlook.
Oops, sorry, I finally noticed that the link in the previous comment is bogus. Here is the correct link.
Post a Comment