Thanks for the insight into how the system works. I see now why the
procedings go out in January. I am not encouraged by the logic of the
system. h-factors will probably help though.
Acta D should improve a bit in 2006, since one paper alone from the 2004
procedings was cited 326 times in 2006.
Jon Wright wrote:
Do you have any data to support the implication that Acta F will have
a lower citation factor than Acta D?
Checked a web of sciences "Citation report" for a search with the year
2005 and "source titles":
ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA SECTION F STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY "AND"
CRYSTALLIZATION COMMUNICATIONS
310 papers, 280 citations, average citations 0.90, h-index 5.
ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA SECTION D BIOLOGICAL CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
231 papers, 677 citations, average citations 2.93, h-index 7.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
146 papers, 337 citations, average citations 2.31, h-index 7.
They say about "h-index": this metric is useful because it discounts the
disproportionate weight of highly cited papers or papers that have not
yet been cited (J.E. Hirsch /PNAS /102(46): 16569-16572, 2005).
FWIW, the impact factor of Acta D was down in 2005 relative to 2004.
The 2005 citation report appears to be for articles published in 03/04
and cited during 2005, so I don't think the split is yet taken into
account.
Seems that software papers can get really high numbers of citations.
Funding agencies please take note?
Jon
