Journal ranks 2020

23 07 2021

This is the 13th year in a row that I’ve generated journal ranks based on the journal-ranking method we published several years ago.

There are few differences in how I calculated this year’s ranks, as well as some relevant updates:

  1. As always, I’ve added a few new journals (either those who have only recently been scored with the component metrics, or ones I’ve just missed before);
  2. I’ve included the new ‘Journal Citation Indicator’ (JCI) in addition to the Journal Impact Factor and Immediacy Index from Clarivate ISI. JCI “… a field-normalised metric, represents the average category-normalised citation impact for papers published in the prior three-year period.”. In other words, it’s supposed to correct for field-specific citation trends;
  3. While this isn’t my change, the Clarivate metrics are now calculated based on when an article is first published online, rather than just in an issue. You would have thought that this should have been the case for many years, but they’ve only just done it;
  4. I’ve also added the ‘CiteScore’ (CS) in addition to the Source-Normalised Impact Per Paper (SNIP) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) from Scopus. CS is “the number of citations, received in that year and previous 3 years, for documents published in the journal during that period (four years), divided by the total number of published documents … in the journal during the same four-year period”;
  5. Finally, you can access the raw data for 2020 (I’ve done the hard work for you) and use my RShiny app to derive your own samples of journal ranks (also see the relevant blog post). You can add new journal as well to the list if my sample isn’t comprehensive enough for you.

Since the Google Scholar metrics were just released today, I present the new 2020 ranks for: (i) 101 ecology, conservation and multidisciplinary journals, and a subset of (ii) 61 ‘ecology’ journals, (iii) 29 ‘conservation’ journals, (iv) 41 ‘sustainability’ journals (with general and energy-focussed journals included), and (v) 20 ‘marine & freshwater’ journals.

One final observation. I’ve noted that several journals are boasting about how their Impact Factors have increased this year, when they fail to mention that this is the norm across most journals. As you’ll see below, relative ranks don’t actually change that much for most journals. In fact, this is a redacted email I received from a journal that I will not identify here:

We’re pleased to let you know that the new Impact Factor for [JOURNAL NAME] marks a remarkable increase, as it now stands at X.XXX, compared to last year’s X.XXX. And what is even more important: [JOURNAL NAME] increased its rank in the relevant disciplines: [DISCIPLINE NAME].

Although the Impact Factor may not be the perfect indicator of success, it remains the most widely recognised one at journal level. Therefore, we’re excited to share this achievement with you, as it wouldn’t have been possible, had it not been for all of your contributions and support as authors, reviewers, editors and readers. A huge ‘THANK YOU’ goes to all of you!

What bullshit.

Anyway, on to the results:

Read the rest of this entry »





Journal ranks 2019

8 07 2020

journalstack_16x9

For the last 12 years and running, I’ve been generating journal ranks based on the journal-ranking method we published several years ago. Since the Google journal h-indices were just released, here are the new 2019 ranks for: (i) 99 ecology, conservation and multidisciplinary journals, and a subset of (ii) 61 ‘ecology’ journals, (iii) 27 ‘conservation’ journals, (iv) 41 ‘sustainability’ journals (with general and energy-focussed journals included), and (v) 20 ‘marine & freshwater’ journals.

See also the previous years’ rankings (2018, 20172016201520142013, 2012, 20112010, 2009, 2008).

Read the rest of this entry »





Journal ranks 2018

23 07 2019

journal stacks

As has become my custom (11 years and running), and based on the journal-ranking method we published several years ago, here are the new 2018 ranks for (i) 90 ecology, conservation and multidisciplinary journals, and a subset of (ii) 56 ‘ecology’ journals, and (iii) 26 ‘conservation’ journals. I’ve also included two other categories — (iv) 40 ‘sustainability’ journals (with general and energy-focussed journals included), and 19 ‘marine & freshwater’ journals for the watery types.

See also the previous years’ rankings (20172016201520142013, 2012, 20112010, 2009, 2008).

Read the rest of this entry »





Journal ranks 2017

27 08 2018

book-piles

A few years ago we wrote a bibliometric paper describing a new way to rank journals, and I still think it is one of the better ways to rank them based on a composite index of relative citation-based metrics . I apologise for taking so long to do the analysis this year, but it took Google Scholar a while to post their 2017 data.

So, here are the 2017 ranks for (i) 88 ecology, conservation and multidisciplinary journals, and a subset of (ii) 55 ‘ecology’ journals, (iii) 24 ‘conservation’ journals. Also this year, I’ve included two new categories — (iv) 38 ‘sustainability’ journals (with general and energy-focussed journals included), and 19 ‘marine & freshwater’ journals for you watery types.

See also the previous years’ rankings (2016201520142013, 2012, 20112010, 2009, 2008).

Read the rest of this entry »





Scopus Young Researcher of the Year Awards

7 03 2010

Peter Love & Corey Bradshaw. © A. Harvey

Last week I tweeted a few times about an award I was lucky enough to win – the inaugural Scopus Young Researcher of the Year Award (in the Life Sciences and Biological Sciences category). The awards are supported by Elsevier, Scopus and Universities Australia. I just managed to get a hold of some photos from the award ceremony, so a little post is justified.

It was a fun night at Parliament House in Canberra in front of a very prestigious crowd – most of the Vice Chancellors of Australian universities were present, along with many other distinguished guests. A little daunting, but the reception was very warm indeed.

After meeting the welcoming and congratulatory Elsevier/Scopus team during a pre-dinner reception, the other category winners (Ben Eggleton, Peter Love, Dan Li and Prash Sanders) and I were then escorted to the main event at Parliament House. Bernie Hobbs of ABC Science acted as master of ceremonies, and Senator Kim Carr presented the awards with Y. S. Chi of Elsevier. Prash and I were honoured to sit at the same table with the University of Adelaide’s Vice Chancellor, Professor James McWha.

MC Bernie Hobbs. © A. Harvey

Thanks again to all those who supported my bid at the University of Adelaide and SARDI. Special thanks to Mike Young who nominated me, Barry Brook and Navjot Sodhi who provided reference letters, and K. Wertz for putting the finishing touches on the application.

The Higher Education supplement of the Australian published a few articles about the winners, and I reproduce the one describing my award and research below (article by C. Jones):

SHOOTERS in low-flying helicopters take out feral buffalo, horses and pigs that are wreaking havoc on Kakadu National Park.

There are no bullets and blood, however, as these are not real shooters and animals but silicon ones. They are cyber-entities, represented by numbers, generated in a computer model by mathematical ecologist Corey Bradshaw and his colleagues.

Land managers will be able to use the model to test scenarios in a virtual Kakadu National Park to work out the cheapest and best culling programs to limit the damage from the pests.

The mastery early in his career of mathematical modelling such as the Kakadu computer code has put Bradshaw at the forefront of conservation biology.

In naming him the Scopus young researcher of the year in the life sciences and biological sciences category, the judging panel says his modelling work has added “significant new perspectives and rigour” to his field.

Bradshaw grew up in western Canada. His interest in conservation was piqued when he ranged the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia with his father, who was a game trapper.

He later turned a knowledge of ecology that underpinned “killing things” to saving endangered species.

He obtained a bachelor of ecology from the University of Montreal in 1992. Research as part of a masters degree at the University of Alberta took him to northern Canada to study caribou. Later, he undertook a PhD in zoology at the University of Otago, Dunedin, with his research focusing on the population dynamics of fur seals.

The subjects of his fieldwork have ranged from the lowliest snails in Borneo, through penguins in Antarctica and frogs in Singapore, to Top End buffalo.

Some of his research is aimed at controlling pest species through an understanding of population dynamics. The goal of other work is to prevent extinctions of native species.

The research comes as the life sciences — once derided as the soft sciences — continue to harden up.

Like the so-called hard disciplines of physics and chemistry, biology is increasingly being structured by mathematics, and Bradshaw has been riding the wave.

The mathematics representing complex changes in populations as they boom, bust or stabilise in response to environmental factors is formidable. A paper on the Kakadu model, published recently in Methods in Ecology and Evolution, would not look out of place in a mathematics journal. It is full of equations, matrices and graphs.

“I realised the best thing I could do for my career was to get adept at mathematics,” he tells the HES. “You can’t do much of high value in conservation without it.

“The days of the natural historian walking around, casually drawing things and describing the reproductive structures of plants and animals are gone.

“We need to do the systematics as well, but the mathematics is a fundamental component of all biology now, especially ecology, because it’s such complex systems we’re dealing with.

“It’s chaos theory all the time.

“Trying to predict what an entire ecosystem is going to do gets very complicated very quickly, and mathematics is the only way to do it.”

Bradshaw’s Kakadu model divides the landscape into a grid. Equations in the model relate population size to demography for each element of the grid. Input demographic parameters include data obtained empirically through field studies: the age of individuals, the number of breeding females, and birth and mortality rates.

The program is run repeatedly, stepping forward in time, with the population size result of each run forming the initial condition of the next one.

“We can also do population viability analysis,” Bradshaw says. “We can make predictions on the probability that a population will go extinct within a certain period. It gives a window into the future.”

The work can deliver surprising results. Bradshaw’s team last year did an analysis for the federal government on the critically endangered grey nurse shark to find out the main factors in the species demise. The work showed that fishing was the biggest threat, not beach nets or a lack of protected areas, as previously suspected.

The results have influenced conservation policy, he says.

Other research suggests the Tasmanian devil, listed as endangered because of the devastating devil facial tumour disease that is ripping through populations, has recovered from big disease outbreaks before.

“We didn’t know that until we started looking at the demographic model,” Bradshaw says. “It is a scavenger, so it was probably exposed to a lot more diseases than your average animal.”

But he warns against complacency about the outbreak.

The modelling work has allowed him to make generalisations about the risk of extinction and that enables biodiversity managers to target their efforts.

“Five thousand is almost a magic number in conservation,” he says. “If you’re playing with less than that, you’re fighting a losing battle.”

The research also reveals which exotic species are likeliest to become invasive, knowledge valuable to biosecurity.

A consummate science communicator with a blog (ConservationBytes.com) and heavy community outreach schedule, Bradshaw is focusing on assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change.

And how do his models define Homo sapiens?

“They’re telling us that about 15 per cent of all the humans that ever lived are alive today,” he says. “That means that we are in the exponential phase of an invasion, much like rats on a new island or cockroaches in a new apartment.

“If we’re not careful, the very ecosystems that support our success will ensure our demise.”

CJA Bradshaw

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine