As always, the ratings are based on a combination of journal citations, recent citations, number of articles, and community opinion (outlined in my previous post). At the end of this series, I will post the raw data underlying the ratings.
Yet Again With the Caveats
Remember, these rankings are only one method for measuring the efficacy, quality, and impact of a journal, and you will probably disagree with one or more of the placements on the list. Especially for relatively young journals, rankings may change rapidly in the coming years.
Top Immediate Open Access Journals for Paleontology 2009
(General Results)
(General Results)
- Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, American Museum Novitates, PLoS Biology [tie]
- [tie]
- [tie]
- Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
- Ameghiniana
- Paläontologische Zeitschrift
- PLoS ONE
- Palaeontologia Electronica
- Geologica Acta
- Vertebrata PalAsiatica
- Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Geodiversitas [tie]
- [tie]
- Geogaceta
- Estudios Geológicos
- Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
- Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology
- Revue de Paléobiologie
- Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum
- Contributions in Science from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
- Journal of Paleontological Sciences*
- Coloquios de Paleontología
- PalArch
- Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie
- Natura Nascosta
- The Open Paleontology Journal
- Palaeodiversity
- Journal of Paleontological Techniques
Notes
In some cases, relative ranks of journals may differ in this list from the previous category. This is because journals are ranked relative to all entries in a single category. For instance, PLoS ONE and PLoS Biology were tied in the last list, but are separated in the present one. Let's consider the number of article citations - relative to all immediate open access journals, PLoS ONE is ranked fifteenth and PLoS Biology is ranked second. When we exclude museum journals, the ratings move to ninth and second, respectively. When you add up all the rankings, little changes like this can jostle a journal's position; such behavior is particularly common near the top of the list. Later, I'll be releasing the underlying data and you can see for yourself.
Up Next. . .All Open Access Journals
3 comments:
This is very helpful Andy, thanks for putting it together.
I'm assuming that Palaeodiversity ranks so low because it is a "new" journal and thus still relatively unknown? Remember this is just an open access relaunch of the journal Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde Serie B, which has a fairly long history.
Precisely, Bill. Because the ranks are heavily weighted by number of papers and number of citations, new journals (or journals with new titles) are ranked lower.
Post a Comment