The journal cited frequency is usually an index to weigh an academic research achievement and may provide useful information for the academic society. However, it is spectulated that it may be influenced by factors such as the citing frequencies of other journals, the price of the journal and so on. In this work, as an initial attempt we will investigate the correlation between the citing frequency and cited frequency in the same journal. The data is taken the JCR (Journal Citation Reports) annually published by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) to understand the relationship between citing and cited patterns. Moreover, Impact Factor from the JCR has also been used as a basis of ranking, we will discuss about the variation in journal ranking in all fields based on Markov chain modeling. The ranking based on a modified impact factor will be used to compare with that by the original impact factor provided by the JCR.

This dissertation research is focused on how we, as researchers, ‘influence’ others researchers. In particular, I am concerned with the notion of what constitutes the ‘influence’ of a scholar and how ‘influence’ is conferred upon scholars. This research is concerned with the construct called ‘scholarly influence’. Scholarly influence is of interest because a clear “theory of scholarly influence” does not yet exist. Rather a number of surrogate measures or concepts that are variable are used to evaluate the value of one’s academic work. ‘Scholarly influence’ is broken down into ‘ideational influence’ or the influence that one has through publication and the uptake of the ideas presented in the publication, and ‘social influence’ or the influence that one has through working with other researchers. Finally through the use of the definition of ‘scholarly influence’ this dissertation tries to commence a definition of ‘quality’ in scholarly work.

Many academic decision makers rely on quantified ranking measures to estimate the quality of journal publications. The aim of this study was to map journals in Information Systems (IS) with regard to their topic and their rank and determine whether there is a relationship between the scope of a journal and its rank. The study used content analysis, applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The results of the analysis show the existence of relationships between the journal rank, the research area, and the type as well as significant differences in ranking on the three lists. The findings illustrate that ranking measures, as indicators for the quality of research published in a journal ought to be considered only in the context of a particular research area and scientific community.

Many academic decision makers rely on quantified ranking measures to estimate the quality of journal publications. The aim of this study was to map journals in Information Systems (IS) with regard to their topic and their rank and determine whether there is a relationship between the scope of a journal and its rank. The study used content analysis, applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The results of the analysis show the existence of relationships between the journal rank, the research area, and the type as well as significant differences in ranking on the three lists. The findings illustrate that ranking measures, as indicators for the quality of research published in a journal ought to be considered only in the context of a particular research area and scientific community.

In this Research Commentary, we describe 3 journal metrics–the Web of Science's Impact Factor, Scopus's SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar Metrics' h5-index—and compile the rankings (if they exist) for 69 mathematics education journals. We then discuss 2 paths that the mathematics education community should consider with regard to these citation-based metrics of journal quality: either working within the system to enhance our positioning or resisting or modifying the system itself.