journal impact factor

Very kindly sharing what she knows about J CI + Howell was made with all of us. Ok, I believe you can see the slide on screen. Yes extra. So hello everyone. I have been brought on by the legal a no seam and have been working with them for the past few months on topics related to editorial quality. We are talking today specifically about web of science, but that's not the only thing that I'm working with the team on we're talking about just Journal quality in general, but we understand that jci being new is something.

you need to know about and journal impact factor not being new in still something. That's prestigious something you'd like to know a little bit more about to but in between their suits something very important and that's content quality and editorial quality. So what I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about is quality in that regard. So before I jump in I want to just clarify to everyone that web of science is not a single thing. It's a platform of

over 20 individual databases and if you logged on to your University library right now or if you're at a publisher and you look at your web of science, everybody might see a different variation of web of science depending on what your company or what your University is subscribed to well what we're focusing on and what Maria was focusing on when she talked about the journals citation reports. The jcr is what we call our core collection. And that is used to be poor impact factor purposes only the science citation index at the social sciences index as we explained for jci purposes. We've expanded the jcr to include the Arts and Humanities index and the emerging sources effects. There's also a citation activity from our conferences and books that go into the metrics you will see in the jcr. So how does this content getting to web of Science and ultimately

The jcr. It is largely a human process. We use the technology at the web of science when I was there for four years. We had a mix of people and Tech. How do you triage? How do you take what's most important? What's most quality? What's most high impacting yet that in front of the editors the human team that we employ all over the world to make these journals selections and get them into the databases and that it t is very they're very smart people based all over the world and there is a team, so please know this when you're sending something into the web of science. There is a team of people full-time employees whose role it is is to nothing but evaluate this content and to put it into the places where it shouldn't be

quality the quality of the Jungle impact is of course, very important and we do know that most Publishers and most journals are seeking to get that journal impact factor, but there is no impact without quality. That is why there are so many more quality criteria set and also just having quality at one point does not mean that a journal stays forever Journal has to show consistent while Leti to stay inside of the web of science, certainly, we know that it needs to show impact to get an impact factor, but with the Advent of jci journals are going to have to show quality to maintain that ranking as well. It does come to pass every year that the editorial team will need to look at journals that have been indexed and perhaps remove them either from a specific database or remove them from the web of science entirely based upon.

their quality or their impact. So most likely a journal is going to start its indexing life the emerging sources events and ideally it shows enough impact where it can move into one of those impact factor databases, but thanks to the Advent of the journal citation at the gator jci. You still get a high quality metric. You still get visibility inside of the jcr. Even if you don't have impact, so I'm going to Talk a little bit about the editorial process what the editors use and how they flow Journal through this three-step workflow to decide where a journal is going to be.

the first initial triage, this is the very basic context of a journal it's titled. It's issn the most standard things that are Journal should have it doesn't have any of these very basic things. The editors aren't even going to start and evaluation and we know that on this call most people are affiliated with and all of the great the latest journals are certainly passing this without a Second thoughts. These are all the basic standards of loaded good Journal should have the good thing. is that if for whatever reason you don't have this information, it doesn't condemn a journal if an editor see something missing they can reach out to the publisher and say you really need to include this and once you do you can be on the path toward an evaluation. That's when you move into what's called editorials triage. This is going to be a little more in depth

Because now the weather science editors aren't looking at just the framework of the journal they're looking at the specifics of the journal. They are looking to see the metadata in the quality of the English language. Are you publishing on time? You know, the web of science is a product and that product is purchased by people who expect content to appear on a regular basis and if you the journal are not publishing on a regular basis. That could be a strike against you if being indexed inside of the web of science. So there's a number of these things that the editors will look at as a part of that editorial triage step from there. What would move on to the third step which is both quality and impact and quality takes a lot of the time. This is where the editorial team is going to look even more deeply so not just the metadata of the Articles and is the English language, right? But who's on your

You have the right experts on your board. Are you publishing content from the right experts in your field? What is the peer review process like for your Journal are you being transparent about it? Whoever finds team doesn't say you have to do it single blind or the double blind or you need to open up all of the comments, but we do expect the transparency. They do want to see that you're being honest with the public and honest. with your researchers and honest with the editors about how you're conducting the peer review and that's a huge concern of this step because unfortunately fraud as a concerned that the world over paper mills are concerned the world over so the robustness of the peer review process definitely gets a big look as do many other similar quality measures at this step of the process after looking at the Quality the editors are

so going to assess for impacts now I should point out that at this point. Most journals are not going to have impact especially if they're new charts. Most journals could be of high quality, but they just don't have the citation activity or the presence in their field yet to have impact. So not a lot of journals are going to pass both quality and impact at the same time. This was a bit of a problem in the past because you could get accepted for the emerging sources index which was alone. purple thing but it didn't give you a lot of public recognition in terms of benchmarking against other journals in your field. And that's where J CI has now come in.

so those are the three steps of the process, but I'm going to focus as I had mentioned earlier mostly on Wally because quality is what is going to get your journal indexed in the web of Science. And if you're indexed in the web of Science in that core collection again, probably the emerging sources in Texas, where a journal in zits indexing life. You're going to get that journal Society Nation indicator and that new metric is going to give you an exposure inside. of the jcr. And if you as Marie pointed out a better accounting of what you are as a journal against journals that have impact factors in journals that don't

this is a modified version of a slide that Marie had an herb true presentation. This is something that's available publicly and I too will send out some links and some slides if you'd like to go and see this afterwards, but this is the rubric that the web of science editors have built the show what happens with the journal and those three steps from initial triage editorial triage to the editorial evaluation and what I just discussed on my prior. Slides was what's in this red box here the quality criteria and again in that first gray bar on the left. Most journals don't have to worry about that. But if something is missing or the editors, aren't sure they'll ask you or the publisher to sort it out and then the evaluation start then we get in to the second gray box, which is quality. But what I'm really going to spend the rest of my time on is on the third gray box, which I've outlined green.

here because those are the differentiators, you know if he editors have a choice between two journals of quality and they're not sure which ones they might want to put in there in the lean most heavily on these parts of the quality criteria, and there's eight steps here that we're going to take a look at again if you don't pass this editorial step generally in journals not going to get another evaluation probably for two more years. So you certainly want to have an eye on these next eight pieces so you don't have to suffer through being told we're not going to take you right now and then having to wait a good long while so the first of those is having a look at the editorial boards and the web of science editors are going to look at your board and they're going to look at the size of it and who's on it. And from where in the world they are and where else have they published?

Diversity can be very important, especially if you're calling yourself International Journal of and you only have editorial board members from tsinghua University or single country or a single region. You want to make sure that the the mix of who you have on your board is going to play into what the aims and scope of the journal talk. They're also going to take a look at what's called the validity of statements. This is where they're going to take a look at your transparency. Where is your ethics state? Where is your plagiarism statement? Where is your peer review statement? What are you showing the world about who you are as a journal or a publisher and how are you adhering to proper?

Are you mentioning groups like Coke that you know, make sure that have a very robust set of guidelines for what ethics should be and what openness should be. Are you following those guidelines the web of science debtors will work for that kill you one of the things I had mentioned before again, there's no right or wrong way to do. The peer review could be single-blind. It could be double blind, but you do need to show that you're doing it. You do need to make it clear what your peer review Process is if it's murky in any way, this is a real red flag to the web of science team that maybe this journal isn't ready to be used.

This is a way of guarding against inappropriate Publications a. A lot of journals, especially Open Access journals, which can still be a bit wild. We'll publish papers just to get the apcs just to bring the money in even if certain papers aren't within the aims and scope of the journal the web of science editors will

definitely looking to see what has the publication practice and through put in for your Journal it all of a sudden your publication Spike where you publishing the say 30 articles a year and it went up to 200 or 300. What does that say about the quality of what you're publishing? What does it say about the editorial review? You refute? What does that say about the topics? You're publishing it so big spikes in activity and articles that don't match the engines. scope if the journal is publishing those probably not going to meet the quality criteria of web of science grant support is a big one too. Not only are you publishing the right kinds of articles, but are you publishing articles from researchers who have Grant support? That's a big differentiator for the web of science T. It shows that there's a third party out there that this author or this institution that the authors affiliated with or that

Sure is affiliated with has also vetted as researcher this publisher this journal and has decided that it's doing proper work and is giving it some grants work. It's not a matter of dollar value. It's not a matter of who the grant comes from those certainly there are institutions of the world where if we see your funded by them that stands out but seeing the ground support while it's not required. It is definitely a mark of quality is shown the web of science team that you've gone out to others and that they already assessed you qualities.

Are you adhering to the Norms of say a third party body like the Cope Something That oversees the way that journals are published, but also keeping in mind that some journals intentionally. Look to Buck Trends or look to set Trends. They look to be a bit contrary. Perhaps a journalism 10.

That's will be the Devil's Advocate as you will if that's the kind of Journal you are if you're looking to publish those kinds of provocative papers definitely make that clear inside of the aims and scope of your Journal because those papers tend to not be as highly cited and again citation activity is not everything. There are many more quality aspects of a journal than just the citations. But if your Journal is taking a position to

Be something other than what other journals in the field are make sure that's in the aims and scope. So the editors understand that you're coming at this topic from a different angle alter distribution to something else that the web of science teams going to look at much like the editorial board distribution again, if you're calling yourself International Journal of we're going to expect to see a lot of authors from all over the world. Whereas for some of the go a nose journals. They are Turkish Journal of okay the web of science editors would expect both of the authors are going to come from turkey or come from the region perhaps most of the editorial board members will be from the country or from the region. So again how the journal is named what it professes as its aims and scope the web of science team will then try to match that up against what is actually published inside of the charcoal.

The last bit here is going to be what's called appropriate citations. So not only is it appropriate to publish the right authors and appropriate to have the right editorial boards in order to guard against gaming the metrics in the jcr. The editors will also look to see that the papers are citing. appropriate topics we will expect to see that certain journals are going to cite certain other terminals where some topic areas will pump will I'm sorry sight from other topic areas, but if a cancer Journal is citing an archaeology Journal there better be a real good reason why that's happening if a cancer Journal was citing some kind of a journal in technology engineering perhaps that might have it over with

If it's about the new device a new test a new scanning procedure, so the editors will definitely look at not just did this cancer Journal of yours publish the right eight cats are authors and have the right cancer peer reviewers and the right kids are affiliated and board members, but are you also citing topics in the articles that you publish that makes sense with what the journal is supposed to be about? so that is the end of my talk, but there are plenty of other links that I can share with you and that you will see if you'd like to read up on how the editors do their work.

and when it comes time to submit a journal, there's also some information on that as well. But also you could reach out to me. You can also reach out to the gulino's T about proper composition of an editorial board of a journal and of an argument and so with that I will end my presentation and I'll thank you all very much for your time. Very good. Thank you for the useful information