For a quick recap — a recent bioRxiv preprint (Larivière et al. 2016) suggested that journals should publish citation distributions for greater transparency since Journal Impact Factor is a poor metric. (Last week in Science the conversation continued both online and in print).
I wrote a post about the distributions for 4 geomorphology journals when the bioRxiv paper was covered in Nature. One of the journals was Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface. However the impact factor for JGR-ES is calculated from the entire JGR suite of journals (Oceans, Biogeosciences, Solid Earth, Earth Surface, Planets, Space Physics, and Atmospheres).
Now I turn my attention to all of the JGR sections to determine if the citation distributions are similar. The results below are for the 2015 Impact Factor calculation, following the methods from my previous post and Larivière et al. 2016:
These plots are for: A (JGR- Atmospheres), B (JGR- Biogeoscience), O (JGR- Oceans), P (JGR- Planets), SP (JGR- Space Physics), and SE ((JGR- Solid Earth). JGR – Earth Surface was left off because 1) six plots can be formatted easier than seven, and 2) JGR-ES is shown in the previous post.
Not suprising, all the distributions show a similar skewed distribution. Two outliers are left off the graph (one paper in JGR-A with 283 cites; 1 paper in JGR-B with 55 cites).
Combining all citations for the 7 sections into a single distribution yields the same (albeit larger) skewed distribution:
Also, sorry for the ‘jet’ colormap.