Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\28713181
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 Scientometrics
2017 ; 110
(1
): 43-64
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Neophilia Ranking of Scientific Journals
#MMPMID28713181
Packalen M
; Bhattacharya J
Scientometrics
2017[Jan]; 110
(1
): 43-64
PMID28713181
show ga
The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to
scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing
ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper
(citations)-these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work
that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the
proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we
implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical
papers dating back to 1946. In addition, we compare our neophilia ranking to
citation-based (impact factor) rankings; this comparison shows that the two
ranking approaches are distinct. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role
for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue
novel science, scientists underinvest in innovative work because of a
coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must
decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence
thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By
contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures
by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit
incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the
coordination problem by increasing scientists' incentives to pursue innovative
work.
free
free
free
