CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 558scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Journal impact measures in bibliometric research

Open access
Glänzel, Wolfgang, Moed, Henk F.·2002·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1023/a:1014848323806
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1014848323806

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Keyword co-occurrence analysis can better track the research trend of ACT, provide directional guidance for future research, and contribute to the theoretical and application development of ACT.

    “Keyword co-occurrence analysis Can better track the research trend of ACT, provide directional guidance for future research (Glanzel and Moed, 2002; Li Z. et al., 2021; Li, 2022), and also contribute to the theoretical and application development of ACT.”

    From Characteristics and trends in acceptance and commitment therapy research: A bibliometric analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Glanzel and Moed, 2002

    The cited paper’s Conclusions (page not provided) discuss journal impact factors and other citation measures, not keyword co-occurrence analysis. Searches for keyword co-occurrence, research trends, and future research directions found no passage addressing the attributed claim about tracking ACT research or guiding future work. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Allison, P. (1980), Inequality of scientific productivity, Social Studies of Science, 10: 163-179. · DOI
  2. Asai, I. (1981), Adjusted age distribution and its application to Impact Factor and Immediacy Index, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32:172-174. · DOI
  3. Braun, T., GlÄnzel, W. (1995), On a source of error in computing Journal Impact Factors, Chemical Intelligencer, January, 31-32.
  4. Braun, T., GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1989), Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the Science Citation Index Database, Scientometrics, 15: 325-330. · DOI
  5. Garfield, E., Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and Humanities, New York: Wiley, 1979.
  6. Garfield, E. (1986), The evolution of physical chemistry to chemical physics, Current Contents, 3: 3-12.
  7. Garfield, E. (1987), Why are the impacts of leading medical journal so similar yet so different: Item-by-item audits reveal a diversity of editorial materials, Current Contents, January 12.
  8. Geller, N. L. (1978), Citation influence methodology of Pinski and Narin, Information Processing and Management, 14: 93-95. · DOI
  9. GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1988), Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact, Journal of Information Science, 14: 123-127. · DOI
  10. GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1995), Predictive aspects of a stochastic model for citation processes, Information Processing & Management, 31: 69-80. · DOI
  11. GlÄnzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1994), A stochastic model for the ageing analyses of scientific literature, Scientometrics, 30: 49-64. · DOI
  12. GlÄnzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1995), A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature, Journal of Information Science, 21: 37-53. · DOI
  13. Hirst, G. (1978), Discipline Impact Factor: a method for determining core journal lists, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29: 171-172. · DOI
  14. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Wormell, I. (2000), Applying diachronous citation analysis to research program evaluations, In: Cronin, B., Atkins, H. B. (Eds). The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, Medford, N. J.: Information Today, Inc. & American Society for Information Science, pp. 373-387.
  15. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Rousseau, R., Russell., J. (2001), The publication-citation matrix and its derived quantities, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46: 524-528. · DOI
  16. Lindsey, D. (1978), Corrected quality ratio: A composite index of scientific contribution to knowledge, Social Studies of Science, 8: 349-354. · DOI
  17. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1995), Improving the accuracy of the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factor, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46: 461-467. · DOI
  18. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1996), Impact Factors can mislead, Nature, 381: 186. · DOI
  19. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. (1996), A critical analysis of the Journal Impact Factors of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society: Inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only, Scientometrics, 37: 105-115. · DOI
  20. Moed, H.F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. (1998), A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54: 387-419. · DOI
  21. Moed, H.F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. A. (1999), Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact, Scientometrics, 46: 575-589 · DOI
  22. Pinski, G., Narin, F. (1976), Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications, Information Processing and Management, 12: 297-312. · DOI
  23. Price, D. J. de Solla ( 1970), Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and non-science, In: C. E. Nelson, D. K. Pollak (Eds), Communication among Scientists and Engineers (Heat, Lexington, Mass. pp. 1-12.
  24. Rousseau, R. (1988), Citation distribution of pure mathematics journals. In: L. Egghe, R. Rousseau (Eds), Informetrics 87/88, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 249-260.
  25. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel W. (1983), Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publications, Scientometrics, 5: 59-74. · DOI
  26. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W. (1986), Mean response time. A new indicator of journal citation speed with application to physics journals, Czechoslovakian Journal of Physics, B 36: 121-125. · DOI
  27. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W., Braun, T. (1987), Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance, Scientometrics, 12: 267-291. · DOI
  28. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W., Braun, T. (1989), Scientometric Datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major fields and subfields 1981-1985, Scientometrics, 16: 3-478. · DOI
  29. Seglen, P. O. (1997), Citations and Journal Impact Factors: Questionable indicators of research quality, Allergy, 52: 1050-1056. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Smart, J. C., Elton, C. F. (1982), Consumption factor scores of psychology journals, Scientometrics, 4: 349-360. · DOI
  31. Todorov, R. (1983), Condensed matter physics journals, Scientometrics, 5: 291-301. · DOI
  32. Todorov, R., GlÄnzel, W. (1988), Journal citation measures: A concise review, Journal of Information Science, 14: 47-56. · DOI
  33. Tomer, C. (1986), A statistical assessment of two measures of citation: the impact factor and the immediacy index, Information Processing and Management, 22: 251-258. · DOI
  34. Wallace, D. P. (1986), The relationship between journal productivity and obsolescence, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37: 136-145. · DOI
  35. Yanovsky, V. I. (1981), Citation analysis significance of scientific journals, Scientometrics, 3: 223-233. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Glänzel, Wolfgang
  • Moed, Henk F.
ORCID
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-02
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
171-193
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1023/a:1014848323806
OpenAlex
W1856837095
Cited by
558
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
journal impact factor, citation analysis, ISI, statistical reliability, skewed distributions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review