REVIEW 1 cited by
How stable are the impact factors of major astrophysics journals
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We examine the long-term trends in impact factor over the past decade (2015-2014) for seven flagship journals widely used in Astrophysics: ApJ, AJ, ApJL, ApJS,A &A, JCAP, and MNRAS. We check the variation of both the traditional impact factor as well as the median-based impact factor, which we had studied in a previous work. We find that ApJS exhibits the largest drop in impact factor from 14.9 to 9.0, while ApJ and MNRAS show a steady decline from 6.7 to 5.2 and 5.6 to 5.0, respectively. However, the impact factors for AJ and ApJL have shown a steady increase from 4.55 to 5.35 and 6.4 to 9.7, respectively. The median-based impact factors are much more stable showing variations of at most $\pm 1$ within the last decade.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A meta-analysis of impact factors of particle physics journals using NASA/ADS
ADS-based impact factors for 16 particle physics journals broadly track official Clarivate values, with PTEP and ARNPS inflated by single outlier papers.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.