Expression #1 of SELECT list is not in GROUP BY clause and contains nonaggregated column 'n.id' which is not functionally dependent on columns in GROUP BY clause; this is incompatible with sql_mode=only_full_group_by
Expression #1 of SELECT list is not in GROUP BY clause and contains nonaggregated column 'n.id' which is not functionally dependent on columns in GROUP BY clause; this is incompatible with sql_mode=only_full_group_by IMPACT FACTOR WEIGHTED BY 5-YEAR IMPACT FACTOR - Problems of Information Technology, scientific -practical journal
AZERBAIJAN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
IMPACT FACTOR WEIGHTED BY 5-YEAR IMPACT FACTOR
Rasim M. Аlguliev, Ramiz M. Aliguliyev, Nigar T. Ismayilova

Impact factor is the most used indicator for journals ranking defined by citations frequency. Impact factor is the ratio of the number of citations in the current year to papers published in the previous two years to the number of substantive articles published within the same two years. In impact factor’s calculation a number of all citations to journal, regardless of the prestige of cited journals, scientific units (paper, researcher, journal or scientific organization) is used, however, citations by journals with high impact factor or researchers with high Hirsch index are more important than citations by journals without impact factor or unknown researcher. In this paper we propose impact factor weighted by citing journals’ 5-year impact factors for getting more accurate rankings for journals, which consider not only quantity of citations, but also quality of citing journals (pp. 26-35).

Keywords: impact factor; weighted impact factor; 5-year impact factor
DOI : 10.25045/jpit.v06.i2.03
References
  • Garfield E. Science citation index – a new dimension in indexing // Science, 1964, vol.144, no.3619, pp.649–654.
  • Seglen P.O. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality // Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1997, vol.52, no.11, pp.1050–1056.
  • Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor // Cardiovascular Research, 1997, vol.33, no.1, pp.1–7.
  • Reedjik J. Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data // New Journal of Chemistry, 1998, vol.22, no.8, pp.767–770.
  • Gonzales-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote V.P., Moya-Anegon F. A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator // Journal of Informetrics 2010, vol.4, no.3, pp.379–391.
  • Perez-Hornero P., Arias-Nicolas J.P., Pulgarin A.A. An annual JCR impact factor calculation based on Bayesian credibility formulas // Journal of Informetrics, 2013, vol.7, no.1, pp.1–9.
  • Rousseau R. On the relation between the WoS impact factor, the Eigenfactor, the SCImago Journal Rank, the Article Influence Score and the journal h-index. Preprint 2009. http://eprints.rclis.org/13304/
  • Palacios-Huerta I., Volij O. The measurement of intellectual influence // Econometrica, 2004, vol.72, no.3, pp.963–977.
  • Bergstrom C. Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals // College & Research Libraries News, 2007, vol.68, no.5, pp.314–316.
  • Bollen J., van de Sompel H., Hagberg A., Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures // PLoS ONE, 2009, vol.4, no.6, e6022: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
  • Lillquist E., Green S. The discipline dependence of citation statistics // Scientometrics, 2010, vol.84, no.3, pp.749–762.
  • Owlia P., Vasei M., Goliaei B., Nassiri I. Normalized impact factor (NIF): an adjust method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals // Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2011, vol.44, no.2, pp.216–220.
  • Iftikhar M., Masood S., Song T.T. Modified impact factor (MIF) at specialty level: a way forward // Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, vol.69, pp.631–640.
  • Pudovkin A., Garfield E. Rank-normalized impact factor: a way to compare journal performance across subject categories // Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2004, vol.41, no.1, pp.507–515.
  • Leydesdorff L, Opthof T. Scopus’ source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus the journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, vol.61, no.11, pp.2365–2396.
  • Pinski G., Narin F. Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: theory, with application to literature of physics // Information Processing and Management, 1976, vol.12, no.5, pp.297–312.
  • Bollen J., Rodriguez M.A., van de Sompel H. Journal status // Scientometrics, 2006, vol.69, no.3, pp.669–687.
  • Zyezkowski K. Citation graph, weighted impact factor and performance indices // Scientometrics, 2010, vol.85, no.1, pp.301–315.
  • Buela-Casal G. Assessing the quality of articles and scientific journals: proposal for weighted impact factor and a quality index // Psychology in Spain, 2004, vol.8, no.1, pp.60–76.
  • Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M. Journal weighted impact factor: a proposal // Journal of Informetrics, 2008, vol.2, no.2, pp.164–172.
  • Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie // Journal of Informetrics, 2008, vol.2, no.4, pp.369–372.