Talk:Citation impact

Don't merge

 * No, "citation impact" should not be merged with the "Impact Factor" article - citation impact is different from (broader than) Impact Factor. Impact Factor = Journal Impact Factor (JIF), i.e. a measure on the "journal level". Citation impact can be much broader and can for example be the impact of a particular article or researcher, which is different from the JUF ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.213.235 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 June 2006


 * I agree with the above: the Journal Impact Factor is the average citation count for a journal, but individual articles and authors have citation counts too, and so do works other than journal articles, such as books. Merging citation impact with the journal impact factor would be merging a sharper instrument (individual citation counts) with a duller instrument (average citation counts). Moreover there are journal-specific controversies about the journal impact factor that are irrelevant to individual citation counts, and should not be allowed to merge with or submerge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2006

I also do not think the two should be merged. I might not have found the information I was looking for, on this page, if "citation" wasn't in the title. "Impact factor" isn't enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.113.151 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 July 2006

I also Agree, Journal Impact Factors or JIF's are something that ISI thompson have adopted and are unique and should remain sepeate from citation impact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.113.32 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 August 2006

I agree as well. Impact Factors are specific, having an exact definition. They have been analyzed in detail in many published works, and the discussion of them should be kept separate. "Citation impact" is a much vaguer term. In addition, the definition given in this article (average citations per article) is not correct, as a comparison with the true article on impact factors will show. Keep them apart. — DGG 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is consensus from all sides. DGG 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

duplication/
The principal contents of this article seems to duplicate the section 9 Bibliography of Empirical Studies on Open Access in the article on Open access. Since the open access artice is quite long, perhaps it should appear only here, with a suitable reference.DGG 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

16 References?
Are all 16 articles listed as references for this 3 paragraph (plus bulleted list) 10 line article.

A Reference is a resource actively used to create the article. Information from a reference must be actually included in the article itself.--ZayZayEM 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite apt that an article on citations uses many citations. Not a reason to keep that many, but it made me laugh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.93.201 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Included most references into (expanded) article as suggested by ZayZayEM. There are still a couple that look iffy. --Fmenczer (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OA journals
Regarding the edits on 28 February 2020, I too agree that the claim that "it is better to publish in an OA journal for more citations" is not warranted. For one thing, it's controversial whether OA papers actually do get more citations. Besides, Wikipedia isn't a manual. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the evidence. If there, I don't think "isn't a manual" would hold, if written something like. "The evidence shows that publishing in an OA journal often receives more citations than publishing in a traditional paywalled journal." Bellagio99 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence for what exactly? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence that ("green") OA articles are cited more than non-OA articles is stronger than the evidence that ("gold") OA journals are cited more than non-OA journals. The two main reasons for this are that (1) most of the top-cited journals today are still non-OA and (2) many of the author-pays-to-publish OA journals today are either of low quality or downright faudulent "predatory journals," preying on authors' eargerness to publish-or-perish (and thereby lowering the average citation counts of OA journals) (I've re-written the overview on the Citation impact article.) --User:Harnad (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Errors?
Reference 12 (van Noorden, R.; Maher, B.; Nuzzo, R. (2014). "The top 100 papers". Nature. 514 (7524): 550–553. Bibcode:2014Natur.514..550V. doi:10.1038/514550a. PMID 25355343.) may be focussed on natural sciences rather than related to what are genuinely the most cited works. For example, I note that it ignores Vygotsky (1978) 'Mind in Society', which has about 140,000 citations to date. 213.31.1.57 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)