Impact Factor Evaluation
|
Category |
Item |
Weight |
Rating (0-1) |
Weighted Score |
|
1. Journal Characteristics |
|
0.20 |
|
|
|
|
Age of the Journal |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Regularity and Stability |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Journal Title Relevance |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Open Access Availability |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Multilingual Nature of Articles |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Website Multilingual Support |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
DOI and CrossMark Integration |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Plagiarism Checks |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Design and Layout of Journal |
0.01 |
|
|
|
2. Editorial Board Quality |
|
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
Reputation of Editorial Board Members |
0.04 |
|
|
|
|
Diversity of Editorial Team |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Google Scholar and Database Inclusion |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Editorial Process Quality |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Editorial Experience and Expertise |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Publisher Reputation |
0.01 |
|
|
|
3. Article Quality |
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
Originality and Contribution |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
Scientific Quality |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
Technical Editing Quality |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Reviewer Comments and Author Revisions |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Presentation (Layout and Structure) |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Plagiarism-Free Content |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Contribution to the Field |
0.03 |
|
|
|
4. Review Process |
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
Review Timeliness |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Reviewer Expertise |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Reviewer Comments Quality |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Double-Blind/Single-Blind/Transparent Review |
0.02 |
|
|
|
5. Indexing and Databases |
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
Prestigious Indexes |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Visibility in Global Databases |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Inclusion in Multidisciplinary Indexes |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Indexing in Emerging Fields |
0.02 |
|
|
|
6. Presentation and Accessibility |
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
User-Friendly Layout |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile-Friendly Design |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Interactive Features |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Accessibility to Researchers and Public |
0.03 |
|
|
|
7. Editage Services |
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
Language Editing Services |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Plagiarism Check Services |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Formatting Services |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Artwork and Figure Enhancement |
0.01 |
|
|
|
8. COPE Compliance |
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
|
Ethical Guidelines |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Integrity of Research |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Handling of Misconduct |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Author & Reviewer Conduct |
0.01 |
|
|
|
9. Additional Considerations |
|
0.06 |
|
|
|
|
Exact Date of Publication |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Journal Reviewers’ Quality |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Uploading Articles in Europub |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Activity on the CMS Platform |
0.02 |
|
|
|
Total Impact Factor (EPIF) |
|
1.00 |
|
|
Calculation Method:
- Assign Ratings: Rate each item on a scale of 0-1.
- Calculate Weighted Score: Multiply the weight of each item by its rating.
- Sum Weighted Scores: Add up all the weighted scores to get the final impact factor.
Example Calculation:
- Suppose a journal has the following ratings:
- Journal Characteristics: 0.80
- Editorial Board Quality: 0.85
- Article Quality: 0.90
- Review Process: 0.80
- Indexing and Databases: 0.75
- Presentation and Accessibility: 0.70
- Editage Services: 0.85
- COPE Compliance: 0.90
- Additional Considerations: 0.80
Weighted Scores Calculation:
- Journal Characteristics: 0.20 × 0.80 = 0.16
- Editorial Board Quality: 0.15 × 0.85 = 0.1275
- Article Quality: 0.25 × 0.90 = 0.225
- Review Process: 0.10 × 0.80 = 0.08
- Indexing and Databases: 0.10 × 0.75 = 0.075
- Presentation and Accessibility: 0.10 × 0.70 = 0.07
- Editage Services: 0.05 × 0.85 = 0.0425
- COPE Compliance: 0.05 × 0.90 = 0.045
- Additional Considerations: 0.05 × 0.80 = 0.04
Total Impact Factor:
0.16 + 0.1275 + 0.225 + 0.08 + 0.075 + 0.07 + 0.0425 + 0.045 + 0.04 = 0.795
The final impact factor score, in this example, would be 0.795 (or 79.5%).
|
Impact Factor Range |
Performance Rating |
|
0.90 - 1.0 |
Excellent (A1) |
|
0.7 - 0.89 |
Good (A2) |
|
0.50 - 0.69 |
Average (A3) |
|
0.0 - 0.49 |
Poor (A4) |
A1: The journal exhibits outstanding performance across all categories, showing exceptional quality, visibility, and ethical standards.
A2: The journal performs well, with solid quality and reliability but may have some areas for improvement.
A3: The journal meets basic standards but shows significant room for enhancement in several areas.
A4: The journal struggles with many criteria, indicating serious deficiencies in quality, visibility, or ethical practices.