Editorial pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Measuring Value and Real Impact Norbert J. Pienta*,† and Marcy H. Towns‡ †
Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2556, United States Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, United States
‡
ABSTRACT: Publishing a scholarly journal requires the means and necessity for metrics by which its success is measured. The utility of such a journal to a very diverse group of users suggests multiple criteria for evaluation. The value and use of citations as one of those criteria is discussed, as is an article that explores these issues in greater detail. KEYWORDS: General Public, Public Understanding/Outreach, Chemical Education Research
M
range of years (2006−2016) and different manuscript types.3 To expedite comparisons, they generated a citation index (CI), a ratio of citations per citable item in which appropriate citations were defined. The comparison of the CI with the journal IF is discussed, as is the data for the CI of the group of published articles that report on chemical education research, CER. Note that the Journal publishes a relatively small number of CER research articles compared with the remainder of types of scholarly works. For 2016, the CER papers represent ca. 7% of the total items published. But to the CER community and to chemistry education at large, the CER papers represent ones that are more comparable with publications of research-only journals (in both education and chemistry).4 The citation index for CER papers in JCE is significantly higher (i.e., often by 2−3 times) than that for the Journal taken as a whole. Some differences might be obvious. For example, the Journal publishes a substantial number of laboratory experiments (ca. >25% for a volume), and on the basis of feedback from the community, these are widely used. (That information is borne out in download data as well.) However, at least in the United States, a common model is for the experiments to be adopted and adapted, and often published online or in a print version specific to each university, school, or program. Thus, this work may be “cited” but not in a peer-reviewed publication. It also contextualizes the findings to know that in 2016 the total number of citations in JCE was >8500 and the number of whole article downloads exceeded 2.2 million. The current model for publishing in JCE covers a broad range of manuscript types, chemical content, and potential applications. From the variety of perspectives of our constituencies, arguments can be made supporting the value of all of them. A higher citation index for chemical education research than for other article types is not a condemnation of specific items. For example, it is not surprising to these editors that research-specific content requires and generates a more extensive citation list. A thorough research study will require references to theoretical frameworks, to methods, to previous research in chemistry or other discipline-based research disciplines,5 and to connections related to practice. We hope that practitioners of CER find the information useful and encouraging. Some may be tempted to compare
easures of the intrinsic value of items are as diverse as the things that we wish to evaluate. In academia, faculty “worth” can be discussed in terms of watershed events such as tenure and promotion (or post-tenure review), or in the factors that are used for the latter determinations: classes taught, content created, students graduated, papers published, grants written and funded, and various forms of service, just to name some common ones. Along the way, faculty are subjected to annual merit evaluations, often using similar criteria. In turn, those faculty members often ask the Editor and his colleagues about some of those indicators of faculty success. These questions are related to benchmarks for the Journal: the acceptance rate for articles, the number of full-text downloads, and the often-maligned impact factor (IF).1 The Journal has a long history of providing relevant information about the teaching and learning of chemistry, approaching a century of doing so. Historically, the success of the Journal came from its value to its subscribers and readers, with the persistence of JCE as an example of its success. While there is great pride in this heritage and the historical evidence of success, newer forms of evaluation provide different metrics, ones that should be considered for those in positions of authority who must be good stewards within the changing world of peer-reviewed publications. A single number or set of numbers is never likely to provide a real measure of the value of JCE to the community. Nevertheless, these numbers are part of our reality. Citations of previous literature are ways to acknowledge work in a field, to disseminate it, and to expand the connections among areas of knowledge. Citations also provide a means to assess previous scholarly work or researchis it novel, interesting, and useful?a trio of the Editor’s favorite criteria. Related to and derived from citations is the two-year journal impact factor, the ratio of the number of citations in two years divided by the number of citable items.1 This ratio is easy to use to compare trends in time or to compare journals. For 2016, the JCE impact factor is 1.225.2 These impact factors vary by journal type and subject; the value of content in education journals is often neither so immediate nor so short in duration. Although important, these other metrics are beyond the scope of this discussion. One of the authors of this editorial and her colleagues examined citation data from within the Journal, looking at a © 2017 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: May 9, 2017 539
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00266 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 539−540
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
single values with related indices from other journals; however, that is not the intention nor does it do justice to the CER subdiscipline or the potential value of JCE. Data, including that which is about the Journal itself, keeps us informed and allows us to make evidence-based decisions. We strive to provide the highest quality of material for the chemical education community to use in research and in practice.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Norbert J. Pienta: 0000-0002-1197-6151 Marcy H. Towns: 0000-0002-8422-4874 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS. Norbert J. Pienta is Professor and Director of General Chemistry at the University of Georgia, where he teaches and conducts research and scholarship about the teaching and learning of chemistry, devising methods, instruments, and analytics to characterize student learning and increase student success. He currently also serves as the Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Chemical Education. Marcy H. Towns is Professor and Director of General Chemistry at Purdue University, where she teaches and directs research pertaining to the teaching and learning of chemistry focusing on undergraduate chemistry laboratory and the interface between mathematics and chemistry, particularly physical chemistry. She currently also serves as the associate editor for chemical education research for the Journal of Chemical Education.
■
REFERENCES
(1) For the Journal Citation Report and Impact Factor, see:https:// jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/JCRJournalProfileAction.action?pg= JRNLPROF&journalImpactFactor=1.225&year=2015&journalTitle= JOURNAL%20OF%20CHEMICAL%20EDUCATION&edition= SCIE&journal=J%20CHEM%20EDUC (accessed Apr 2017). (2) For the current journal impact factor for JCE, see: http://pubs. acs.org/journal/jceda8 (accessed Apr 2017). (3) Rodriguez, J.-M. G.; Bain, K.; Moon, A.; Mack, M. R.; DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. The Citation Index of Chemistry Education Research in the Journal of Chemical Education from 2008 to 2016: A Closer Look at the Impact Factor. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 10.1021/ acs.jchemed.7b00062. (4) For example, see Chemistry Education Research and Practice at http://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/ chemistry-education-research-practice/ (accessed Apr 2017). (5) The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Science Education. Status Contributions and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. http://sites. nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_072106 (accessed Apr 2017).
540
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00266 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 539−540
