JOBM Takes the Bronze!

JOBM Takes the Bronze! cont.

by Donald A. Hantula
Temple University

A Closer Look
A criticism that may be leveled against JOBM’s high impact factor is that it may be due to self-citation (self-citation in the JCR refers to citations in a particular journal to other articles published in that journal) because the majority of JOBM’s citations are from other articles published in JOBM (McGrath, 2001 levels the same criticism at journals in social psychology). However, self-citation is not necessarily problematic or improper when considered in the context of the discipline and its scholarly practices. In an exhaustive study of over 5,000 journals by ISI-Thomson, McVeigh (2004) found a very weak correlation between self-citation and Impact Factor (r = .03) that appeared to be influenced by a few outliers. Citation is a practice of a scientific community, and while self-citation is most likely not a pejorative issue in evaluating JOBM’s impact factor, it may illuminate some aspects of the OBM intellectual community.

The relatively large number of self-citations to JOBM may be better understood when considering the paradigmatic nature of OBM research. OBM is based in behavior analysis, an inductive theory that relies on replication to establish the reliability and generality of empirical findings (Sidman, 1960). As such, OBM research would be expected to explicitly build on previous results, replicate and extend studies, and of course, cite those works that form the foundation of a current study. Indeed, in the case of JOBM the self-citation index is a check of disciplinary integrity; a low self-citation rate in JOBM would indicate a troubling departure from the basic tenets of its theoretical bases.

The self-citation practices may also be clarified when considering the OBM’s social milieu and culture (Mawhinney 2000a). OBM research is discussed and disseminated within a well-defined community of researchers and practitioners who are annually well represented at the ABA-International meeting and who also meet bi-annually at the FABA/OBM Network meeting. In the last OBM Network News, Tittlebach and Alvero summarized the intellectual excitement and exchange of ideas that are the highlight of this conference. We share data from studies in progress and in press, and plans for future research. These meetings are an important means to allow for the most recent work to influence studies in progress. As Mawhinney (2000b) observed, JOBM serves as an authentic record of the OBM community’s collective work. Two other factors associated with in JOBM’s self-citation rate that should be acknowledged are (1) the fact that there are few outlets for the type of work done by the OBM community and such specialization would be expected to be related to self-citation (McVeigh, 2004), and (2) there are many review articles published in JOBM. Yes we are a very self-critical bunch, but in a good way.

We Salute You...
So, what next? Such a high score on a performance measure like the JCR Impact Factor should be an occasion for some reinforcement! If you made it this far through the article, join the OBM community in celebrating its achievement. Not wanting this to sound like a bad Academy Awards acceptance speech, all individuals will not be named here but they are easily identified. Look through the past issues of JOBM and note:

The people who wrote the papers: These individuals did the hard work, sometimes over periods of years, designing, conducting, analyzing, and finally writing up the OBM research papers that are being cited. Applaud the authors for their contributions!
The people who reviewed the papers: Scan the list of the editorial board. These individuals work behind the scenes to select papers for publication and also to shape up accepted papers, often through multiple revisions, so their value can shine through. Thank the reviewers for their hard work!
The people in charge: The envelope please. With only 2 people in this category we can name them. Co-editors John Austin and Tom Mawhinney have done an excellent job over the years guiding JOBM, keeping it true to its roots while also encouraging much healthy variability in its content. Congratulate John and Tom on their effective leadership!

When you see these people IRL or virtually, be sure to offer some appropriate form of social an/or tangible reinforcement! Don’t see your name here yet? Re-read Tittlebach and Alvero’s piece from last issue and get started. Plan a good study, run it, write it up and send it to JOBM. The journal is only as good as its contributions. Read JOBM, publish in JOBM, and cite JOBM. Keep the big wheel turning!

The Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) is complimentary to OBM Network members.

Join today!

References

Christenson, J. A, & Sigelman, L. (1985). Accrediting knowledge: Journal stature and citation impact in social science. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 964-75

Dickinson, A. M. (2000). The historical roots of organizational behavior management in the private sector: The 1950s-1980s. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20, 9-58.

Garfield E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178:471-479.

Garfield E. (1994a). Expected citation rates, half-life, and impact ratios: Comparing apples to apples in evaluation research. [retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://scientific.thomson.com/knowtrend/essays/citationanalysis/citationrates/].

Garfield E. (1994b). The impact Factor: ISI. [retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://scientific.thomson.com/knowtrend/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor/].

Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3, 363-369.

Mawhinney , T. C. (2000a). The organizational behavior management culture: Its origins and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20, 1-8.

Mawhinney , T. C. (2000b). OBM today and tomorrow: Then and now. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20, 73-137.

McGarty, C. (2000). The citation impact factor in social psychology: a bad statistic that encourages bad science? Current Research In Social Psychology [retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.5.1.htm].

McVeigh, M. (2002). Journal self-citation in the journal citation reports - science edition (2002) [retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://scientific.thomson.com/knowtrend/essays/journalcitationreports/selfcitation2002/].

Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42-46.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502.

Seglen, P. O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia, 69, 224-229.

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.

Starbuck, W. (2005). Journals with rapid increases in citations. [retrieved January 10, 2005 from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/rise.htm].

Starbuck, B. & Mezias, J. (1996). Journal Impact Ratings. [retrieved January 10, 2005 from http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipapr96/starbuck.htm]

Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2001). Measuring Prestige of Journals in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. The Industrial/Organizational Psychologist. [retrieved February 5, 2005 from http://siop.org/tip/backissues/TipApr01/03Zicker.htm]