Preprint Open Access

Assessing the publication output on country level in the research field communication using Garfield's Impact Factor

Moreno-Delgado; Gorráiz; Repiso

This document is a preprint of an article subsequently published in Scientometrics. It should be noted that the definitive version includes important improvements, such as a longer study period (double), etc.

The ever-increasing evaluation of science has led to the development of indicators at different levels. In the present study, we intend to calculate the Impact factor for production in the field of Communication studies at country level. Our objective is to describe the publication activity of those countries that were most productive in the field between 2013 and 2019. We use the Impact factor to analyze the production of countries indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, their international collaboration, and the scientific impact of their production. Our results show that the most productive countries are not those that make the most impact. We also confirm that English-speaking countries dominate the scenario in terms of number of publications and that states such as Spain and the Netherlands benefit from the Emerging Source Citation Index. Furthermore, we have found that at least 30% of most countries’ scientific production involves international collaboration and that the United States of America is the collaborator of choice in Communication studies. Our country-based Impact factor also correlates with indicators such as normalized impact, 5-year impact, or the number of publications in the top 10%.

Files (1.2 MB)
Name Size
1.2 MB Download
  • Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.

  • Arunachalam, S., & Doss, M. J. (2000). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis. Current Science, 79(5), 621–628.

  • Barnett, G. A., Danowski, J. A., Feeley, T. H., & Stalker, J. (2010). Measuring Quality in Communication Doctoral Education Using Network Analysis of Faculty-Hiring Patterns. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 388–411.

  • Barnett, G. A., & Feeley, T. H. (2011). Comparing the NRC and the faculty hiring network methods of ranking doctoral programs in communication. Communication Education, 60(3), 362–370.

  • Barnett, G. A., Huh, C., Kim, Y., & Park, H. W. (2011). Citations among Communication journals and other disciplines: A network analysis. Scientometrics, 88(2), 449–469.

  • Batagelj, V. (2008). Analysis of Large Networks with Pajek. Networks, 22–27.

  • Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), 10008.

  • Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Citation impact of papers published from six prolific countries: A national comparison based on InCites data. Retrieved from

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418.

  • Cervi, L., Simelio, N., & Tejedor Calvo, S. (2020). Analysis of Journalism and Communication Studies in Europe's Top Ranked niversities: Competencies, Aims and Courses. Journalism Practice.

  • De Filippo, D. (2013). Spanish Scientific Output in Communication Sciences in WOS. The Scientific Journals in SSCI (2007-12). Comunicar, 21(41), 25–34.

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.

  • Garfield, E. (1976). Journal Citation Reports. A Bibliometric Analysis of References. (E. Garfield, Ed.). Institute for Science Information.

  • Gingras, Y., & Khelfaoui, . (2018). Assessing the effect of the nited States' "citation advantage" on other countries' scientific impact as measured in the eb of Science (WoS) database. Scientometrics, 114(2), 517–532.

  • Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.

  • Gómez Caridad, I., & Bordons, M. (2009). Limitaciones en el uso de los indicadores bibliométricos para la evaluación científica. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from

  • González-Riaño, M. G., Repiso, R., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). Repercusión de los rankings universitarios en la prensa española. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 37(3), 1–9.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

  • Hoeffel, C. (1998). Journal impact factors. Allergy, 53(12), 1225–1225.

  • Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33(4), 831–837.

  • King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316.

  • Kwiek, M. (2018). International Research Collaboration and International Research Orientation: Comparative Findings About European Academics. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 136–160.

  • Lauf, E. (2005). National Diversity of Major International Journals in the Field of Communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 139–151.

  • Leydesdorff, L., outers, P., Lutz ornmann, •, ornmann, L., & e, . (201 ). Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators-a state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2129-2150.

  • Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 443–461.

  • Moed, H. F. (2016). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings.

  • Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157–175.

  • Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.

  • Schmitz, C. C. (1993). Assessing the Validity of Higher Education Indicators. The Journal of Higher Education ISSN:, 64(5), 503–521.

  • Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849–1857.

  • Trabadela-Robles, J., Nuño-Moral, M.-V., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & De-Moya-Anegón, F. (2020). Analysis of national scientific domains in the Communication field (Scopus, 2003-2018) María-Victoria Nuño-Moral Palabras clave Félix De-Moya-Anegón.

  • van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer , a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, (84), 523–538.

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

All versions This version
Views 1111
Downloads 3838
Data volume 45.4 MB45.4 MB
Unique views 1010
Unique downloads 3636


Cite as