Stocktake Sale on now: wide range of books at up to 70% off!
Register      Login
Pacific Conservation Biology Pacific Conservation Biology Society
A journal dedicated to conservation and wildlife management in the Pacific region.
EDITORIAL

Pacific Conservation Biology and Clarivate’s Web of Science

Mike Calver
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. Email: m.calver@murdoch.edu.au

Pacific Conservation Biology 26(3) 213-214 https://doi.org/10.1071/PCv26n3_ED
Published: 4 September 2020

Databases of the research literature are critical tools for practitioners and academics working in conservation. They provide speedy, economical data retrieval relative to searching hard copy, thereby facilitating meta-analyses, literature reviews, staying abreast of new developments, and following collaboration networks. Databases are selective, though, so awareness of published literature is dependent on where it is indexed. Inclusion in one of the more selective databases may also be taken as a sign of relevance or quality, leading some researchers to only consider papers included in prestigious databases. In this context, some authors considering a submission to Pacific Conservation Biology ask, ‘Is Pacific Conservation Biology in Web of Science?’ To answer this question a little background is needed.

Web of Science (WoS), known until January 2014 as Web of Knowledge (WoK), is published by Clarivate Analytics (the previous publisher was Thomson Reuters). It covers books, journals and conference proceedings. Although known as a single database, it actually comprises several distinct specialist citation indexes or other resources (Clarivate 2020a):

  1. Web of Science Core Collection

  2. BIOSIS Citation Index

  3. Chinese Science Citation Index

  4. Data Citation Index

  5. Russian Science Citation Index

  6. SciELO Citation Index

  7. Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews

  8. CABI: CAB Abstracts and Global Health

  9. FSTA – the food science resource

  10. Inspec

  11. KCI – Korean Journal Database

  12. Medline

  13. Zoological Record

  14. Current Contents Connect

  15. Derwent Innovations Index (Patents)

Subsidiary databases can be searched simultaneously by selecting the ‘search all databases’ tab on the search page, or subsidiary databases can be searched individually by selecting them in a dropdown menu on the search page. Individual institutional subscriptions to WoS vary in the subsidiary databases they contain and how far back in time the subscriptions run. It is therefore possible for a search in WoS at one institution to give different results to a search in WoS at another institution, depending on the range of databases and subscription years at each institution.

For many years Pacific Conservation Biology has been listed in BIOSIS Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews and Zoological Record, so papers in Pacific Conservation Biology were found in a WoS (all databases) search if the subscription included one or more of these databases. With that caveat, it can be said that Pacific Conservation Biology is listed in WoS and has been for many years.

For many people, though, WoS means the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), which is the well-known specialist database within WoS that was called Web of Science with Conference Proceedings before January 2014. It covers journals, conference proceedings and books, with a bias to the sciences. Once again, the WoSCC is not a single database, but has multiple components (Clarivate 2020a):

  1. Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

  2. Book Citation Index (BKCI)

  3. Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)

  4. Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)

  5. Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)

  6. Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)

Science journals can be covered in the ESCI or the SCIE, with journals in the SCIE having the further distinction of being listed in Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and receiving an impact factor. For inclusion in the ESCI, journals must meet 24 quality criteria focused on editorial rigour and good practice. To qualify for the SCIE, they must meet a further four impact criteria (Clarivate 2020b).

Earlier this year CSIRO Publishing was informed that Pacific Conservation Biology has been included in the ESCI and will, in time, be evaluated for inclusion in the SCIE. Thus, it is true to say that Pacific Conservation Biology is now included in the WoSCC, but it is not in the SCIE and therefore not in the JCR and does not have an impact factor.

The listing in ESCI and therefore the WoSCC is important because the WoSCC is regarded as the most rigorous and selective of the major databases relevant to conservation science, so inclusion is a sign of journal quality. Some researchers use only the WoSCC to search for journal papers, so without a listing in the WoSCC Pacific Conservation Biology was invisible to them. Following the listing more researchers will locate Pacific Conservation Biology papers, which should mean more citations and a growing reputation for the journal and its authors. Note, though, that only Pacific Conservation Biology papers published since the date of acceptance into the ESCI will be listed in the WoSCC. Back issues will appear in a WoS (all databases) search if the subscription includes BIOSIS Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews or Zoological Record.

What about the impact factor? Pacific Conservation Biology does not have one because the journal is not yet listed in the JCR. For those who accept the criticisms of the impact factor specifically (Vanclay 2012), journal ranking in general (see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment https://sfdora.org, accessed 1 August 2020) or the citation analyses on which rankings are based (MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2018), this is not a problem – once visibility is covered via a listing in WoSCC, the rest is irrelevant. In favour of the views of those who think this way are the empirical results across a range of research disciplines confirming that one cannot infer the quality of a paper from the journal in which it is published (e.g. Seglen 1992, 1997; Zhang et al. 2017). For those who need to establish journal ranking, tools other than the impact factor are freely available. For example, SCImago (SCImago 2020) provide comprehensive journal ranking statistics that can be used as alternatives to the impact factor. Some of these ranking statistics, plus others from sources such as Google Scholar, are available for Pacific Conservation Biology at https://www.publish.csiro.au/media/products/PCB.pdf (accessed 1 August 2020).

Putting everything together, Pacific Conservation Biology is listed in the WoSCC and therefore the WoS. Prospective authors can be confident that publications in Pacific Conservation Biology have high visibility. Those who are concerned about comparative journal rankings may use alternative statistics in lieu of an impact factor for the moment, although an impact factor may come in the future.



References

Clarivate (2020a). Web of Science: summary of coverage. Available at: https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage [accessed 28 July 2020].

Clarivate (2020b). Web of Science journal evaluation process and selection criteria. Available at: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/journal-evaluation-process-and-selection-criteria/ [accessed 28 July 2020].

MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 69, 474–482.
The mismeasure of science: citation analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

SCImago (2020). SJR — SCImago journal and country rank. Available at: http://www.scimagojr.com [accessed 28 July 2020].

Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 43, 628–638.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314, 498–502.
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 92, 211–238.
Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., and Sivertsen, G. (2017). Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: revisiting Seglen’s work on journal impact and research evaluation. PLoS One 12, e0174205.
Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: revisiting Seglen’s work on journal impact and research evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |