Take the 2-minute tour ×
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Where can I find a database of impact factors where self-citation has been removed? A journal's self-citations are defined as those citations by that journal's papers towards other papers in the same journal.

The reason I want to know this is to know which journals are engaged in coercive citation so that I know which journals I should avoid.

share|improve this question
Even with self-citations excluded, I don't think impact factor will be a reliable measure of reputability / goodness. –  Nate Eldredge Dec 24 '12 at 6:32
@Jase can you write a little more about what you're trying to find out, as that will help us provide better answers? Perhaps if you can say why you want to know which journals are actually "reputable/good" that will help. Is it to decide where you should publish? What you should subscribe to? Which you should cite? Which you should trust? –  EnergyNumbers Dec 24 '12 at 13:16
I want to know which journals are actually reputable/good. — Which journals have papers that you actually read and actually cite? Those. –  JeffE Dec 24 '12 at 18:31
@Jase: Then you probably have some reading to do before you start thinking about publishing anything. –  JeffE Dec 25 '12 at 4:29
@EnergyNumbers All I want is to know where to find IFs stripped of self-citation. This will help me to identify those engaged in coercive citation. There are other ways of identifying this which I don't want to be told (because I already know them), and therefore I feel that the existing question is appropriate. –  Jase Dec 25 '12 at 14:58

4 Answers 4

up vote 9 down vote accepted

I don't think any of the existing systems take out the self-citations. The publishers and journals are not interested in seeing reduced impact factors, so few editorial boards and fewer yet commercial publishers would be interested in anybody producing such rankings. If a discipline has its independent referencing and citations systems, they might be interested in such more objective analysis -- e.g., economists have their CitEc (Citations in Economics), a part of RePEc (Research Papers in Economics), which does track self-citations (see the 2012 Nobel prize winners, Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley as examples... the first one has as many self-citations as the second one, total citations). I would venture a guess that mathematicians might have a similar system. But I doubt that natural or social sciences do.

The high impact journals are obviously important for publishing, getting good academic jobs and getting tenured. However, impact factor may only tell a part of the story, and some disciplines have reputable journals that may not have the highest possible IFs. Let me take again economics as an example that I am familiar with. In most US departments, you'd get tenured if you have a paper in either American Economics Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, or Econometrica. (The QJE is often said to mostly publish MIT and Harvard folks.) AER is only 19th in this list of impact factors (which may be as good as any other list that's not password protected by ISI), and I have never heard about some of these journals. The AER's impact factor of 2.5 is not even funny for a biologist seeking Science or Nature publications, though -- the impact factors of the latter are what, 30 or so?

I work in industry and tend to care little about the journals outside of my area (statistics); generally, statistics journals tend to have IFs between 0.25 and 4. The reality of my particular field (survey research) is that people just submit their paper to proceedings of the annual conferences and move on with their paying projects, and don't have the time to BS back and forth with the reviewers. There are people in academia who need to publish-or-perish, so you would see some typical academic papers with rather small contributions to the knowledge, but their authors either have their own time or slave labor force grad students to write these up.

As a guiding rule of what journals to avoid, you can start with commercially published journals and respect the professional organizations publish their journals themselves, without Wiley or Elsevier grabbing them as a source of income... although I can imagine that coercive citations is what the editorial boards insist on, which may or may not correlate strongly with who publishes a given journal. I have received requests to cite the given journal more (this is a problem for disciplines with an overproduction of journals fighting each other; again, in my industry, there are probably four or five decent ones, and they don't need to fight), but tended to ignore them.

share|improve this answer

The SciVerse Citation Tracker service, available to anyone with a Scopus subscription, allows it to exclude self-citations. However, it is not designed to evaluate journals, but rather to review citations to a particular author or field. Both the Journal Impact Factor (IF) computed by Thomson Reuters and the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) computed in Scopus by Elsevier include self-citations. I am not aware of any other database that excludes them.

And yet, I wouldn't use any bibliometric indicator as a measure of a journal's reputation, but rather trust the advice of experienced colleagues.

share|improve this answer

I don't know of any impact factor database for which citations from a journal to itself have been removed. One reason why such lists aren't popular (and may not exist at all) is that they would distort the statistics of specialized journals. In a subfield with a small number of journals, one would expect a substantial fraction of the citations to come from the same journal. That does not indicate a problem, and it would be unfair to these journals to judge them without those citations. (Comparing impact factors between journals in different areas is already foolish, since publication and citation practices vary greatly, but there's no point in making it even worse.)

I am skeptical that such a list would be useful for identifying patterns of coercive citation. Thomson Reuters already tries to detect these problems and punish journals. I'm sure the community could do an even better job of detecting fraud if they opened up their entire database, but they of course have strong commercial reasons not to do that. If the current level of fraud checking is being done at all competently, then providing this additional list would not help much.

Incidentally, as I understand it, the state of the art in citation fraud is networks of several journals publishing review articles citing each other's papers.

share|improve this answer

such database as of 2013 is not made public and only Thomson Reuters internally knows.

There would be value in having it. (even as paid service). It would try to make IF a better indicator. It is like JPEG picture format and attempts to move to something else where the legacy is holding us back.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.