New Report: The State of Scientific Research in Japan

by on ‎06-28-2010 10:33 AM

In June 2009 we launched a new series of reports aimed at examining the changing landscape of the global research base. Our latest report, Global Research Report: Japan, found that despite its long-standing position as an innovation leader, Japan’s overall national trend points to a comparatively flat research output and declining share of the world’s annual scientific literature.  What is behind this underperformance? And what challenges, or opportunities, are on the horizon?

 

Download the report here then share your thoughts below.

 

Do you see a looming threat to Japan’s prominence, or is there a less ominous reason behind this trend of change? What do you believe may be behind this static performance? And what might Japan’s leaders do to turn this around?

Comments
by dongnu on ‎01-23-2011 02:22 AM

JAPANESE - Circulation Journal is a famous journal in the Asia-Pacific area of cardiovascular diseases. However, we found the upcoming 2010 SCI impact factor of Circulation Journal will be exceeded by the International Journal of Cardiology. The upcoming 2010 SCI impact factor of the International Journal of Cardiology is likely to be more than 6.

 

With regard to this strange phenomenon, we found the international journal of cardiology improves its impact factor by an improper way. We would like to explain this as follows:

 

The JCR provides quantitative tools (impact factor) for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations (numbers of citations of all document types published during the previous two years including article, review, letter, editorial, etc.) to the source items (numbers of only 2 document types [article or review]) published in that journal during the previous two years.

Calculation for journal impact factor. 

A= number of 2010 cites to all items (including article, review, letter, editorial, etc.) published in 2008-2009

B= number of items (only the article and review type) published in 2008-2009

C= A/B = 2010 impact factor

 

We performed the search work using the ISI Knowledge system in Jan 23, 2011.

For the International Journal of Cardiology

2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009 were 3395.

    Among them,  2010 cites to article/reviews published in 2008-2009 were only 1495,

                   2010 cites to letters published in 2008-2009 were 938,

                   2010 cites to a special editorial published in 2008-2009 were 894, (This editorial entitled "Ethical authorship and publishing" (2009;131(2):149-150), which introduced the Principles of Ethical Publishing in the International Journal of Cardiology, was asked to be cited by all articles in the Guide for Authors of the International Journal of Cardiology. Thus, all the 894 cites were self-citing)

                   2010 cites to other items published in 2008-2009 were 68.

All items published in 2008-2009 were 1889 (not including the meeting abstract).

    Among them,  the number of article/reviews were only 644,

                   the number of letters were 1183, (Among them, only 26 letters were traditional corresponding letters to the editor commenting the previously published article or the reply, and other 1157 letters were actually research article but published as the type of ‘letter’ [‘pseudo-letter’ articles].)

                   the number of other items were 62.

The predicted value of 2010 impact factor = 2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009/ number of article or review published in 2008-2009 = 3395/644 = 5.27

However, the actual cites per article or review = (2010 cites to article or review published in 2008-2009 + 2010 cites to ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009 / (number of article or review published in 2008-2009 + number of ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009) = (1495 + 938)/(644 + 1157) = 1.35 (the actual value reflecting academic influence)

 

By the improper means, the International Journal of Cardiology increases its 2010 impact factor from 1.35 to 5.27.

 

For the Circulation Journal

2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009 were 2132.

    Among them,  2010 cites to article/reviews published in 2008-2009 were 2070,

                   2010 cites to letters published in 2008-2009 were 5,

                   2010 cites to other items published in 2008-2009 were 57.

All items published in 2008-2009 were 810 (not including the meeting abstract).

    Among them,  the number of article/reviews were 705,

                   the number of letters were 31, (All the letters were traditional corresponding letters to the editor commenting the previously published article or the reply)

                   the number of other items were 74.

The predicted value of 2010 impact factor = 2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009/ number of article/reviews published in 2008-2009 = 2132/705 = 3.02

However, the actual cites per article/reviews = (2010 cites to article or review published in 2008-2009 + 2010 cites to ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009 / (number of article or review published in 2008-2009 + number of ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009) = (2070+0) / (705+0) = 2.94 (the actual value reflecting academic influence)

 

Thus, we believe the 2010 impact factor of the Circulation Journal will be exceeded by the International Journal of Cardiology (3.02 vs. 5.27). However, the actual academic influence of the Circulation Journal is far more than the International Journal of Cardiology (2.94 vs. 1.35).

Announcements
Welcome to the Thomson Reuters community forums. Please refer to the usage guidelines before posting.